Facilitating positive developmental experiences for youth at a summer sport camp
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Positive youth development (PYD) has been examined in various youth sport and camp contexts (Jones et al., 2011), however there is little research that has examined how leaders effectively deliver PYD experiences among youth in non-competitive sport contexts, such as at a residential summer sport camp. Furthermore, there is a lack of research examining the structure and organizational context which enables leader to deliver PYD experiences for youth. Using an instrumental case study methodology (Stake, 1995), 57 participants (15 counselors, 15 coaches, 16 senior campers, 8 counselors-in-training, and 3 management staff) participated in individual interviews and focus groups during one summer camp season. Interviews, observations, and training documents were analyzed using Bronfenbrenner's Process-Person-Context-Time model (Bronfenbrenner, 1999) and the NRCIM's 8 settings features framework (NRCIM, 2002). Results indicated that leaders provided campers with opportunities for positive growth experiences by appropriately structuring social interactions, modifying games and activities to include campers of all ages and physical/developmental abilities, and forming supportive relationships by making connections with individual campers and encouraging them to move outside their social and physical comfort zone at camp. Management supported leaders in delivering PYD experiences by emphasizing a 'staff as one team' philosophy, encouraging staff to act as role models for campers, and through continual staff training session over the summer. Results from this study provide insight into positive youth development practices in non-competitive sport contexts and may help to contribute to staff and coach training in order to facilitate positive development experiences among 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".