MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2619901719

Elite hockey insiders' perceptions of game atmosphere, parent involvement, and athlete enjoyment in Canadian minor hockey

2010· article· en· W2619901719 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah M Jeffery-Tosoni, Jessica Fraser‐Thomas, Joseph Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and Sport · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinor (academic)Ice hockeyElitePsychologyPerceptionAtmosphere (unit)Field hockeyPolitical scienceFootballMedicineGeographyLawPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The need to study Canadian minor hockey culture is made clear by extensive literature and media coverage reporting violence and aggression as undeniably rampant (e.g., Loughead & Leith, 2001), and consistent associations between this aggressive culture and decreased perceptions of sport enjoyment among youth (Petlitchkoff, 1993). Factors contributing to this increasingly aggressive culture include game atmosphere and parent involvement (Goldstein & Iso-Ahola, 2008). Thus, the purpose of the present study was to develop a comprehensive understanding of minor hockey culture by qualitatively examining perceptions of athlete enjoyment, game atmosphere, and parent involvement held by elite hockey insiders in Canadian minor hockey. Participants included ten elite Canadian hockey insiders (e.g., played OHL, NCAA; coached NHL), all of whom emerged from the Canadian minor hockey system and engaged in a 30-60 minute in-depth, semi-structured interview. Preliminary findings highlight the need to stop the over-professionalization of minor hockey, and the general need for parents to step back and play a more supportive role in their children's hockey. Acknowledgments: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada # 752-2010-1645; Ontario Graduate Scholarship Science & Technology

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and SportSame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207