Creating culturally safe youth sport environments supporting Canadian newcomers' wellbeing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Higher levels of physical activity have been associated with physical, psychosocial, and cognitive indicators of wellbeing (e.g., Kettunen, 2015; Richards et al., 2015). Accordingly, sport programs are offered across Canada to ensure persons from all segments of society are involved in quality sport experiences that promote physical activity and wellbeing (Sport Canada, 2011). However, research has indicated that newcomers to Canada have lessened access to sport when compared to permanent residents and Canadian citizens, due to a multitude of interrelated factors (Aizlewood et al., 2005; Bryan et al., 2006). Thus, further research is needed to understand how access to culturally safe sport programs can be facilitated amongst newcomers to Canada. The purpose of the study was to qualitatively examine the lived experiences of the founder and active leader of a newcomers youth sport program deliberately designed to promote the physical activity and wellbeing of its participants. Two interviews were conducted with the program leader over a 2-month timespan, the transcripts of which were combined with program documents for analysis. Interpretative phenomenological analysis (Smith, 2016) was used as a preferred analytical approach to situate the program leader's lived experiences delivering the sport program. Findings provide an intricate picture of the complex contextual factors to be accounted for when running a newcomers youth sport program and ensuring its interconnectedness to other contexts (e.g., school) in youth's lives. Practical implications will be discussed during the presentation, focusing on the importance of intentionally facilitating culturally safe environments that support newcomers' adjustment to Canadian life.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".