Make room adults, there's a new support system in town: The role of external assets for positive development in university sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gould and Carson (2008) called for qualitative research examining the underlying mechanisms related to how positive development occurs through sport. The purpose of this study was to identify the key agents, or external assets, responsible for university student-athletes' acquisition of internal assets, through the lens of student-athletes (Petitpas et al., 2005). Semi-structured open-ended interviews were conducted with fifteen Canadian university (5 male, 10 female; Mage = 22, range = 17-26). Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Athletes identified other athletes, the head coach, the coaching staff, and their parents as the external assets influencing their development. Results demonstrate the direct and indirect influences affiliated with each external asset. Athletes identified other athletes as having the greatest direct influence on their personal development. Further, athlete emphasized the indirect nature of their head coaches influence. Finally, felt they (i.e., self as agent) contributed the most to their own development in the context of university sport, noting a trial-by-fire process where they learned from their own mistakes. Our findings provide a preliminary summary of the external assets responsible for athletes' acquisition of internal assets through their participation in university sport. Further, our results suggest that the direct role of adults may be overstated when it comes to facilitating positive development in emerging adult sport cohorts. Acknowledgments: This research was supported by a Joseph Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship awarded to the first author
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".