Examining differences in needs support, satisfaction, and developmental outcomes across competitive and recreational youth sport.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sport provides an important context for the promotion of positive youth development through engagement in developmentally-appropriate activities and supportive youth-adult relationships. Within sport, both the support of basic psychological needs (i.e. autonomy, competence, and relatedness) and the satisfaction of those needs have been found to aid in positive psychological development. According to Holt and Jones (2008), little research exists that examines youth development outcomes across competitive and recreational sport contexts. Furthermore, to our knowledge, no research has examined differences of basic needs support and satisfaction across these two contexts. Such research would be beneficial for researchers and practitioners to better understand how to structure these types of youth sport. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine differences across competitive and recreational youth sport programs on basic needs support, basic needs satisfaction, and PYD outcomes. Youth participants (ages 10-17) completed self-report measures related to the outlined study variables. Results indicated that significant differences existed in which youth involved in recreational programs had higher perceived levels of basic needs support and needs satisfaction than youth involved in competitive programs. In contrast, youth involved in competitive programs perceived their development of some youth development outcomes as greater than those involved in recreational programs. Practical implications and areas for future research are discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".