Should toddlers and preschoolers participate in organized sport? A scoping review of developmental outcomes associated with young children’s sport participation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organized sport is offered at increasingly younger ages, with many programs geared towards preschoolers, toddlers, and infants. While sport is promoted as an amendable context for healthy development of school-age children, little is empirically known about potential benefits or risks associated with organized sport participation in early childhood. A scoping review of nine electronic databases identified English-language, peer-reviewed, original research articles which addressed psychological, emotional, social, cognitive, or intellectual developmental outcomes of organized sport involvement of children aged 2–5 years; included studies were appraised for quality. Findings offer preliminary evidence that early sport participation is related to primarily positive outcomes (e.g. enhanced social skills, pro-social behaviours, self-regulation), while negative and inconclusive outcomes were also identified. Results suggest limited existing research has primarily relied on parent or teacher proxy-report or assessment, and reinforces that little is known about toddler and preschooler organized sport participation as a distinct form of physical activity, despite pervasive availability of programming, and positive parental perceptions of early enrolment. Additional research with stronger methodological design and rigor is needed; recommendations to enhance the quality of future studies with young children are discussed.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it