An exploration of Aboriginal youth's meaning of sport: A photovoice approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a large body of sport literature that highlights the many psychosocial, emotional, and development benefits of sport participation for youth. However, relatively little literature has focused on the specific benefits for Aboriginal youth. Westernized attitudes regarding the meaning of "sport" may limit research with Aboriginal children and youth (Smith et al., 2010), as such meanings may not be consistent with their perspectives. Thus, the purpose of this research was to explore Aboriginal youth's meaning of sport using a photovoice approach. Photovoice is recognized as a decolonizing approach and employed to build trust and balance power between researchers and communities (Castleden, Gavin, & Huu-ay-aht First Nation, 2008). The participants were 14 Aboriginal youth in grades seven and eight (ages 12-15). Each participant was given one disposable camera at a sport sampler event and encouraged to photograph objects, events, places, or people that represent their meaning of "sport." The students chose two or three photographs to discuss and a school Elder led two talking circle discussions. A qualitative content analysis revealed that "sport" is conceptualized by youth as contemporary sports (e.g., volleyball, basketball), and such sports are equated with having fun and getting fit. The youth also described how sport is envisioned as an opportunity to engage in activities with nature and others. This research is a practical example of how Aboriginal youth can and should be actively involved in sport research, and findings contribute to our program of research that seeks to enhance sport opportunities for Aboriginal youth.Acknowledgments: We would like to thank the participants for sharing their knowledge.This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".