Indigenous Youth Development through Sport and Physical Activity: Sharing Voices, Stories, and Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research has highlighted the cognitive, physical, emotional, and spiritual benefits of sport and physical activity participation for Indigenous youth (McHugh, Coppola, & Sinclair, 2013; Hanna, 2009; Lavallée, 2007). Despite the importance of Indigenous peoples participating in sport and physical activity (e.g., Forsyth & Giles, 2013), the meaning of youth development in this context is not well understood. The purpose of this research was to understand Indigenous youth development within the context of sport and physical activity through the voices, stories and experiences of Indigenous youth. Participants were 99 Indigenous youth (52 males and 47 females) between the ages of 15 and 25 years who took part in one of 13 sharing circles. Each of the sharing circles was facilitated by a trained Indigenous youth with guidance from an Elder/Traditional person. A Two-Eyed Seeing approach (Bartlett, Marshall, & Marshall, 2012) was used to analyze the sharing circle discussions. This analytical process involved an initial inductive thematic analysis of the transcribed verbatim data followed by an Indigenous symbolic visual analysis of emerging themes using the Medicine Circle. Results revealed that involvement in sport and physical activity impacted Indigenous youth physically, cognitively, and emotionally. The spiritual impact was not as evident. Findings from the research will inform the development of a measure of Indigenous youth development within sport and physical activity settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".