Social identity and positive youth development in recreational sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An emerging area of research has focused on understanding how the group dynamics of a sport team influence positive youth development (PYD). The identities that youth form through their membership in sport teams (i.e., social identities) have been found to influence teammate behaviour and team performance (Bruner et al., 2014; Murrell & Gaertner, 1992). Yet, there exists minimal work on social identity and PYD in youth sport. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between social identity and PYD in recreational youth sport. Youth engaged in recreational sport (N = 219; Mage =12yrs) completed measures of social identity (Cameron, 2004) and PYD in sport (MacDonald et al., 2012). The social identity measure assessed three dimensions including ingroup ties (IGT; perceptions of similarity, bonding, belongingness), cognitive centrality (CC; importance of being a team member), and ingroup affect (IGA; feelings associated with group membership). A regression analysis was performed separately for four PYD outcomes (personal and social skills, goal setting, initiative, negative experiences) with the three dimensions of social identity entered as predictors. Regression analyses revealed that IGT (B=.14, B=.11) and IGA (B=.13, B=.08) were positively associated with enhanced personal and social skills (R2adj=.31) and goal setting (R2adj=.16). Further IGT (B=.11) significantly predicted initiative (R2adj=.17), while CC (B=.08) and IGA (B=-.20) were associated with negative experiences (R2adj=.08). The findings extend previous research highlighting the benefits of social identity on teammate behaviour and team performance, demonstrating how social identity may contribute to PYD through sport. Acknowledgments: The project is supported by a Sport Participation Research Initiative (SPRI) grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC 862-2011-0006) and Sport 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".