Exploring basic needs satisfaction in a physical activity-based life skills program for female youth: A qualitative case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity programs are a suitable context to foster positive youth development (PYD) as they are active and afford youth with opportunities to acquire various life skills (Hellison, Martinek, & Walsh, 2008). Similar to PYD, Basic Needs Theory posits that satisfaction of the three psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness will result in optimal psychological functioning (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (GJWHF) program is a physical activity-based life skills program designed to foster PYD outcomes for female members of the Boys and Girls Club of Ottawa. The purpose of this research was to better understand whether the GJWHF program supported participants’ basic needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The results from interviews with program leaders and youth participants suggested that an autonomy supportive environment was achieved by empowering the youth, while the physical activities and sports integrated into the program enabled youth to demonstrate competence. The findings also indicated that a sense of relatedness was present as youth formed positive relationships with the program leaders and developed new friendships with peers. Notably, participants discussed how they transferred some of the life skills learned in the program (e.g., responsibility and ability to meet new people) to situations at school, home, and with their peers, which offers support for recent literature that suggests that the satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs may help youth transfer life skills to different life domains (Hodge, Danish, & Martin, 2012).
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".