Examining the impact of the respect in sport parent program among minor hockey athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined differences in minor hockey athletes' experiences according to the year their league implemented the Respect in Sport Parent Program (RiSPP). Athletes (N = 68) completed online measures of spectators' behaviours (Omli & LaVoi, 2009), prosocial and antisocial behaviours (Kavussanu & Boardley, 2009), and parental support and pressure (Anderson et al., 2003). One way ANOVAs revealed significant differences in athletes' perceptions of parental support (F (2, 60) = 3.34, p < .05, ?2 = .07), prosocial behaviours towards teammates (F (2, 61) = 4.60, p < .05, ?2 = .10), and antisocial behaviours towards opponents (F (2, 61) = 3.88, p < .05, ?2 = .08). Athletes in leagues that had adopted the RiSPP in 2011 reported significantly higher parental support (M = 3.88, SD = .16) compared to athletes in leagues which did not have the program (M = 3.53, SD = .43; p < .05), higher prosocial behaviours towards teammates (M = 4.58, SD = .55) than athletes in leagues that had adopted the program in 2014/15 (M = 4.06, SD = .59; p < .05), and higher prosocial behaviour towards opponents (M = 2.57, SD = 1.21) than athletes in leagues that had adopted the program in 2014/15 (M = 1.68, SD = .80; p < .05). Large effect sizes were found for all significant differences between groups. There were no significant differences in perceptions of parental pressure or spectator behaviours. These results suggest the RiSPP is associated with positive athlete experiences in sport; adoption of the program may also reflect leagues' prioritization of positive athlete experiences. Acknowledgments: This research was supported by a SSHRC Partnership Development Grant awarded to the first 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".