MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790296943 · doi:10.1177/1049732318759668

A Meta-Study of Qualitative Research Examining Sport and Recreation Experiences of Indigenous Youth

2018· review· en· W2790296943 on OpenAlex
Tara-Leigh McHugh, Colin J. Deal, Clara-Jane Blye, Ariel J. Dimler, Elizabeth Halpenny, Allison Sivak, Nicholas L. Holt

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRecreationIndigenousQualitative researchSituatedPsychologyApplied psychologySociologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Participation in sport and recreation may contribute to various holistic benefits among Indigenous youth in Canada. However, there is a need for a consolidated evidence base to support the development of sport and recreation opportunities that could facilitate such holistic benefits. The purpose of this research was to produce a meta-study of qualitative research examining sport and recreation experiences of Indigenous youth in Canada. Following record identification and screening, 20 articles were retained for analysis and synthesis. Strengths and weaknesses of included studies were identified through the meta-method and meta-theory analysis. The meta-data analysis revealed five themes that represent the sport and recreation experiences of Indigenous youth. Working collaboratively with community members, our final meta-synthesis situated these five themes within the integrated Indigenous ecological model. This review consolidates the qualitative evidence base, and provides direction for future research and practice.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysislow
gptMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.126
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1260.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.941
GPT teacher head0.740
Teacher spread0.201 · 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