Provincial stakeholder's perceptions of barriers, opportunities, and communication strategies for using research evidence to inform youth sport delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purposes of this study were to examine barriers, opportunities, and preferred communication strategies in the use of research evidence to inform the delivery of youth sport. Using descriptive qualitative methodology (Mayan, 2009), data were collected via individual semi-structured interviews (M = 43 minutes, range 23-84 minutes) with 12 executive or technical directors (4 female, 8 male) of different Provincial Sport Organizations (PSOs). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and underwent thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The major barriers identified by participants were time and capacity (i.e., funding, being understaffed), knowing what research exists and where to find credible sources, and the lack of appropriate communication from researchers with stakeholders. The opportunities that the stakeholders saw were using research as a way to educate their constituents (i.e., coaches, parents, athletes), to increase athlete retention and recruitment, and to help inform organizational policies. Participants stated that single page research summaries, with links to full text articles, written in accessible language and clearly outlined practical implications would be their preferred method of receiving research information. Participants also expressed interest in receiving research updates via newsletters, so they remain up-to-date with current research. Overall, the results of this study showed that representatives of PSOs were interested in using research to inform their practice and policy and revealed information that may help researchers bridge the research-to-practice gap in youth sport.Acknowledgments: This project is funded by SSHRC Partnership Development Grant #890-2014-0022
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 | 0.027 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".