MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2737611873

Sport parent sideline behavior: An ecological model

2015· article· en· W2737611873 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julia Dutove, Nicole M. LaVoi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSituational ethicsPsychologyPerspective (graphical)Social psychologyApplied psychologyDevelopmental psychologyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Youth sport has the potential to provide numerous psychological, physical, and social benefits, however with high dropout rates (participation decreases by about 20% between 10-15 years old according to Active Healthy Kids Canada, 2014) not all children have the opportunity to receive these benefits. The overall climate of youth sport can contribute to dropout (Hedstrom & Gould, 2004) and adult involvement in youth sport is part of shaping that climate. One adult group that influences children's sport experience and the overall climate of youth sport is parents, who provide various types of support but can also negatively influence the climate through their behavior on the sidelines. Using Bronfrenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory (1977), the purpose of this poster is to outline what is known about sport parent sideline behavior and build a model that identifies gaps in current research and frames future studies about sport parent sideline behavior. A database search yielded 21 studies that were used to build the model. From this model, it is clear that the perspective of the parent is not often considered and therefore future research about parental preferences for sideline behavior, including whether these preferences are influenced by personal or situational factors, is proposed. Specifically, gender and previous sport experience are personal factors that need to be examined and the situational factors of type of sport, the stakes, and type of occurrence on the playing field are factors that need to be considered simultaneously in a large scale study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports→French-language works237,207→