Cohesion as a mediator between friendship quality and enjoyment and intentions to return in a child sport population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motives for sport participation and adherence often involve friendships and affiliation (e.g., Ewing & Seedelft, 1996), and the quality of these relations is associated with enriched sport experiences (e.g., Weiss & Smith, 2002). Cohesion is a construct that is closely related to friendship, and has received recent attention in children's sport (e.g., Donkers et al., 2015). Whereas cohesion has often been used as a representation of friendship and togetherness, an important prerequisite to the benefits derived from a cohesive team may actually be quality relationships. As such, the current project sought to determine whether perceptions of cohesion mediated the relationship between friendship quality and enjoyment and intentions to return in a child sport setting. A prospective observational design was employed, whereby 92 children (Mage = 9.39 years; SD = 0.57) participating in a recreational minor hockey league completed questionnaires at two time points (T1– friendship quality, T2– cohesion, enjoyment, intention to return) during their athletic season. Overall, the R2 values for the combined effects ranged from 14% (intentions to return) to 32% (enjoyment), and with regard to the indirect effects, social cohesion mediated the relationship between friendship quality and enjoyment (b = 0.11, p = .05), whereas task cohesion mediated relationships with both enjoyment (b = 0.18, p = .004) and intentions to return (b = 0.20, p = .03). These findings suggest that a cohesive environment could facilitate important affective responses or motives for continuation in child sport participants that are derived from team member relations. Acknowledgments: Funding provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".