Negative parental behaviour in Canadian youth hockey: Elite insiders' perceptions and recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian youth hockey has been under fire recently, with media reports and peer-reviewed research calling attention to parents’ increasingly problematic behaviours including negativity and aggression directed at their children during hockey games (Feschuk, 2011; Friesen, 2012; Robidoux & Bocksnick, 2010). The purpose of this study was to gain understanding of negative parental behaviour in Canadian youth hockey through the perspectives of ten elite hockey insiders (i.e., those with professional, major junior, or university level experience as a player, coach, parent of elite player, official, or national media personality). Specifically, this study attempts to offer understanding not only what is happening, but also understand the mechanisms behind negative and aggressive parental behaviours. Results revealed several concerns with parent behaviour including abuse towards stakeholders, win-at-all costs attitudes, and overstepping boundaries. Participants attempted to shed light on the motives behind such negative behaviour in the minor hockey environment which included: the lure of professional sport, social status within hockey hierarchy, the sizeable investment parents make in youth sport, and living vicariously through their children. Finally, participants proposed specific solutions to address the prevention and management of these issues including suggestions for effective parent education programs, targeted parent curricular content, and the management of reporting and discipline. Findings are discussed within the context of past literature, with a focus on how programs may best foster safe and enjoyable environments for Canadian youth.
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 | 0.000 | 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".