Exploring sport involvement and development: A case study of one child-athlete's journey through the sampling years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Developmental Model of Sport Participation (DMSP) describes trajectories young athletes commonly follow in their sport participation, involving sampling, specializing, investing, and recreational phases of development (Côté & Fraser-Thomas, 2011). Several physical and psychosocial factors characterize each trajectory (e.g., types of activities, influences of families, coaches, and peers), in turn leading to differing performance, health, enjoyment, and psychosocial development outcomes. While the DMSP has been widely used as a framework to understand youths’ sport development (e.g., McCarthy & Jones, 2007), few studies have explored the interactions among the DMSP’s key factors over time using a holistic framework. The purpose of this longitudinal case study was to examine the sport development of a young athlete throughout the sampling years of the DMSP. Participants included the female child-athlete, her father, mother, and coach. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants at yearly intervals, from the time the child was aged seven to ten. In addition, practices and competitions were observed, and the child’s mother completed demographic and sport history questionnaires. Findings offer a comprehensive understanding of the child’s sport development experiences through the lens of key stakeholders, with themes relating to key factors within the DMSP. For example, given the child’s involvement in numerous sporting activities, parents were conflicted between promoting sport diversification or specialization. As the child worked with several coaches over the course of the study, findings shed light on her adaptation – or lack thereof - to different coaching philosophies. Further, the child was a top performer, regularly training/practicing with older athletes, yet her sport enjoyment was inconsistent throughout these experiences. This case study captures some of the nuances of children’s early sport experiences and enhances understanding of how young athletes eventually achieve performance, health, and psychosocial outcomes. Key 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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".