Parent and athlete perceptions of the respect in sport parent program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Respect in Sport Parent Program (RiSPP) is an educational program that seeks to promote positive behaviours among sport participants. The RiSPP has recently been implemented as a mandatory program among several youth sport leagues across Canada. The purpose of this study was to examine parent and athlete perceptions of the RiSPP. Minor hockey athletes (n = 56) and parents (n = 189) completed open- and closed-ended online questions regarding their use and perceptions of the RiSPP. Descriptive statistics were used to examine participants' use of the RiSPP, and open-ended comments were subjected to content analysis (Patton, 2002). 55.2% of parents reported they had a 'neutral' view of the RiSPP, and 30.9% of parents reported that their perception of the program improved after taking it. 45.5% of parents reported that they discussed the program with their child, 26% reported discussing the program with their spouse/significant other, and 18% discussed the program with other hockey parents. The three most frequently reported aspects of the program that parents discussed with their child included treatment by coaches, officials, and other player; 'being the best player you can'; and bullying, harassment, or abuse. However athletes reported that their parents most frequently discussed proper hydration; 'being the best player you can'; and proper nutrition. Open-ended comments pertained primarily to the content of the program, the cost of the program, implementation and policy issues, concerns that the program would not 'fix' problem parents, and suggestions for program improvement. There was a greater proportion of positive comments about the content of the program compared to negative comments.Acknowledgments: This research was supported by a SSHRC Partnership Development Grant awarded to the last author.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".