Parental Support, Sibling Influences and Family Dynamics across the Development of Canadian Interuniversity Student-Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A vast body of research focuses on the role of parents in athlete development; however, little is known about developmental influences of siblings. In general, family dynamics (i.e., patterns of relating or interacting among family members) have yet to be investigated in youth sport contexts. This study examines how family dynamics and the individual roles of parents and siblings influence the development of Canadian interuniversity student-athletes over time. Participants included four male and six female student-athletes. Each participant took part in a qualitative retrospective timeline interview. All data was subjected to a thematic analysis. Results indicate that siblings and parents play separate yet intricately connected roles in athlete development throughout childhood and adolescence. Overall, participants described a cohesive family unit built on shared values and joint participation in sport activities. They described stable and dynamic forms of support from their parents over time, and positive and negative sibling influences. These findings offer valuable insight into the dynamic nature of parent and sibling relationships with athletes in youth sport and beyond, as well as how these relationships operate in the broader family environment to optimize (and, at times, hinder) athletic development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".