Examining differences in program quality across competitive and recreational youth sport programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research in the context of youth sport has shown that youth can develop a number of positive developmental outcomes as a result of participation. However, it is also recognized that negative outcomes may also result from participation. Accordingly, researchers contend that it is how the youth sport context is structured, in other words the quality of the program, that determines the influence participation has on development. Little research has directly examined program quality (PQ) in youth sport, and in particular, the differences between competitive and recreational sport programs. Given that competitive sport can have higher levels of stress and pressure compared to recreational programs and this high stress and pressure has been linked to burnout and dropout, more research in this area is warranted. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine differences in PQ across competitive and recreational youth sport programs. Program quality was assessed quantitatively from two perspectives: observations conducted by researchers using the Program Quality Assessment in Youth Sport and youth self-report using the Adolescent Program Quality Survey. Observations and questionnaires were completed across a variety of sport programs for youth between 10 and 17 years of age. Significant differences between these contexts were found on eight subscales of PQ based on researchers' observed PQ. Moreover, significant differences were found on two subscales of PQ based on youths' perceptions. Findings outline important practical implications as it relates to structuring youth sport programs based on the level of competition.Acknowledgments: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".