Parental perceptions of a national program that funds sport participation for low-income children and youth in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The financial costs associated with organized sport and recreation programs can act as salient barriers to child and youth participation. Programs that provide financial assistance to parents to support engagement may help alleviate these barriers, however little is known about how these programs actually impact families. This study examined the perceptions of parents who received funds from one such program (KidSport) in Eastern Canada.Method Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 parents who had received KidSport funding in the previous two years. Participants were systematically recruited from two communities in the province of Nova Scotia and asked how funding impacted their children’s sport and PA participation. Data were subject to thematic analysis.Results Financial support helped parents facilitate their children’s sport participation, which yielded important social benefits for both parents and children. However, parents were still required to navigate overlapping and intersecting barriers related to time constraints, transportation demands, and high enrollment fees often overlooked in the literature.Conclusions Families living in low income face complex and intersecting barriers that inhibit young people’s activity engagement. Programs that fund or subsidize child and youth sport and PA can help alleviate these barriers and provide social benefits for both parents and children. Future research is needed that considers the complexity of intersecting barriers and works to create more equitable provisions for young people’s sport and PA participation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".