All about tsn (the social networking): Parents' perspectives on youth sport in an era of specialized sport opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parents play a primary role in shaping children's early sport experiences through their emotional investment, modelling, and the value they place on competition. Increasingly youth participate in a decreasing number of sports reflecting a trend toward early specialization - a pursuit often reinforced by sport organizations, private sport-businesses, and perhaps most importantly, by parents. The purpose of this study was to unpack the perceptions of adults who have children in early specialized sport programs (ESSP) to better understand where they see these programs fitting within the optimal youth sport experience. Ten participants drawn from three ESSP including parents of children currently involved in ESSP (n=6), and parents who are also current coaches in ESSP (n=4) completed open-ended interview questions exploring the perceived benefits and challenges associated with ESSP within the overall youth sport experience. The majority of participants (8/10) reported that their child engaged in their sport all year. Thematic content analysis revealed parents viewed expanding the child's social network (70% of respondents) and technical skill development (60%) as the key benefits of ESSP. Making friends was also identified as the primary personal benefit to having their children involved in ESSP (50%). The primary drawbacks to ESSP were expense (60%) and time away from other activities (50%). Only 4/10 participants had considered removing their children from ESSP with avoiding burnout as the primary motivation for considering doing so. Despite the small sample, these findings suggest that the development of social networking is seen by parents as an overarching benefit of their children's participation in ESSP.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".