Helpful or harmful? An investigation of how parents influence athlete role acceptance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the sport context, role acceptance refers to an athlete's willingness to fulfill responsibilities associated with his/her role (Benson et al., 2013). Recently, researchers have attempted to uncover some of the potential antecedents of role acceptance (Benson et al., 2013; Eys et al., in preparation). Through these investigations, coaches indicated that parents may play a part in the degree to which athletes accept their role. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to explore in-depth how parents influence athlete role acceptance via the perspectives of multiple sport actors (e.g., parents, athletes, coaches). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 participants (7 parents, 7 athletes, and 5 coaches) associated with a variety of interdependent sport teams. Following the interviews, participant responses were transcribed verbatim and subsequently analyzed using inductive analysis (Patton, 2002). Various themes/sub-themes emerged and were organized into a framework to describe parental characteristics (e.g., investment, sport competence, unrealistic expectations) and behaviours (e.g., supporting, undermining, intervening), as well as the consequences (e.g., athlete role acceptance, team and individual specific consequences) associated with parental sport involvement with regard to athlete role acceptance. As a secondary strategy, the themes were also combined and presented through the perspective of a parent using a composite vignette, a fictional representation that presented themes in a more relatable manner (Spalding & Phillips, 2007). Discussion focuses on several practical and theoretical implications including proposed changes to the way formal role development is studied through the Role Episode model (Kahn et al., 1964; Eys et al., 2005).
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".