Parental Involvement in the Transmission and Development of Youth Athletes’ Role Responsibilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to examine parental involvement in youth athletes’ task role development through the perspectives of important youth sport stakeholders (e.g., athletes, parents, and coaches). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 participants (4 athletes, 7 parents, and 5 coaches) from four different types of competitive interdependent team sports (e.g., basketball). Analysis of the interview data occurred inductively through a conventional content analysis. Results generally demonstrated that all sets of participants perceived parents to influence athlete role development. Specific themes are organized into three overarching categories that explore parent characteristics (e.g., parental sport knowledge, investment), parent behaviors (e.g., support, intervention), and the resulting consequences of parental involvement (e.g., athlete role acceptance, team specific consequences). Discussion is focused on several theoretical implications surrounding the study of formal role development and emphasizes future research directions including the consideration of other social agents (e.g., teammates) in the role transmission process.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".