A Test of Basic Psychological Needs Theory in a Physical-Activity-Based Program for Underserved Youth
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study used a randomized controlled design to test the pathways in basic psychological needs theory, where social relationships characterized by autonomy support, involvement, and structure foster psychological need satisfaction and well-being. Participants were recruited from a physical-activity-based youth program. A new staff training was implemented to manipulate the use of each interpersonal characteristic by program staff (N = 24 observed) and perceptions of each interpersonal characteristic, psychological needs, hope, and self-worth in youth (N = 379 surveyed pre- and postprogram). Staff in the intervention condition used greater overall observed autonomy support, involvement, and structure. Condition assignment did not lead to differences in youth perceptions, but observed staff behaviors positively predicted youth perceptions of staff and perceptions of staff positively predicted change in well-being. Findings indicate that the training manipulated how staff engaged youth, and autonomy support, involvement, and structure are useful strategies to foster well-being in youth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it