Parent and child perceptions of the frequency and acceptability of spectator behaviours in minor hockey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between parent and athlete perceptions of spectator behaviours in minor hockey. Parents (n = 446, median age: 41-50, 37% male) and athletes (n = 74, median age group: Midget, 78% male) completed a modified version of the Perceptions of Spectator Behaviours questionnaire (Omli & Lavoi, 2009) to ask how often they witnessed negative spectator behaviours, and how acceptable they thought these behaviours were. Additionally, parents were asked how often they engaged in negative spectator behaviours. Results indicated that athletes reported seeing negative spectator behaviors (M = 2.32, SE = 0.07) significantly more frequently than parents (M = 1.95, SE = 0.03), t(518) = -4.92, p < .001. Athletes were also significantly more likely to report these spectator behaviours as acceptable (M = 1.70, SE = 0.06) than parents (M = 1.25, SE = 0.01), t(518) = -6.75, p < .001. Conclusions: Athletes' reports of seeing more negative spectator behaviors than parents is cause for concern and this finding may be explained by athletes themselves being the targets of negative behaviours of spectators during games. The higher frequency of witnessing these behaviours may contribute to athletes accepting them as 'part of the game', which may explain why athletes reported negative spectator behaviours as more acceptable compared to parents. These findings raise concerns about the normalization of negative spectator behaviours within youth hockey.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".