Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolution of youth sport programs, including hockey, has resulted in the creation of adult-controlled organizations (Fiore, 2003), whereby children and their parents are the product of an entire social system of youth hockey, one that is largely created, organized, and run by adults (Robinson, 1998). The purpose of this paper is to discuss the involvement of parents in creating and sustaining the youth hockey culture and questions at which point, if ever, does competitive youth hockey become too much? The paper presents findings from an in-depth case study of one "Peewee AA" boys' hockey team. Qualitative data were gathered through participant-observation, direct observation, and interviews throughout a full season timeline. Findings showed that youth hockey becomes a "lifestyle", whereby the demands were remarkably comparable to that of a professional endeavour, allotting minimal time for "kids to be kids". Goffman (1961) used the concept of 'total institution' to refer to an isolated, enclosed social system, in which individuals spend their time and have limited physical and social contact with the outside world. The competitive youth hockey environment, commonly dictated by hegemony and hierarchy, implicitly maintained a hold on families. Although parents were cognizant of the consequences such a hectic schedule incurs, including early specialization, sibling sacrifices, physical and emotional fatigue, as well as time away from the family household, they rationalized the abundance of 'hockey time' as "it is what it is". But is this truly in the best interest of young hockey players?Acknowledgments: Dr. Janice Ahola-Sidaway, Thesis Supervisor
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".