Staff perspectives on building social relationships with participants in a physical activity-based youth development program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Staff in youth development programmes are often tasked with establishing positive relationships with youth to support well-being in young people from underserved backgrounds. To understand how staff understand and approach the development of positive social relationships with youth, and learn how to better support this process, we examined staff perspectives on how they establish these relationships and feedback on training designed to foster staff – youth connections. Staff (N = 10) in a physical activity-based youth programme were interviewed about their experiences and perspectives on their interactions with youth, and how the training they received influenced these interactions. Interviews were analysed through the lens of constructivism. Staff shared that they fostered positive social bonds with youth through mutual experiences, one-on-one conversations, enacting supportive roles, and applying their training. Barriers to establishing positive social relationships with youth included a large staff-to-youth ratio, limited downtime to socialise, and unfamiliarity with youths’ cultures. Staff communicated that they promoted growth in youth by serving as role models and helping youth apply programme lessons to life challenges. Further, a new theory-based training for staff helped them take advantage programme activities to connect with youth and implement evidence-based strategies to establish positive social bonds with youth. Findings highlight staff perspectives, and illustrate the variety of approaches staff use to establish positive social relationships with youth. These perspectives offer practical strategies to help future staff to leverage social connections to promote youth development, and feedback on how training can improve staff – youth connections.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".