Perceptions shaping the youth sport experience: Examining self-efficacy, parental other-efficacy, and perceptions of overweight children in sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To ensure sport provides an opportunity for positive youth development for children of all body weights, there is a need to fully understand the social context that may shape the recreational or community-based sport experience. The purpose of this study was to examine how parents and children view children’s abilities in sport, and how children view potential teammates based on weight. Child-parent dyads (N=102) drawn from multiple sport programs completed measures of self-efficacy, other-efficacy, and perceived characteristics of a potential teammate described in a vignette as either tall or heavy. The majority of child participants self-identified as female (51 %), Caucasian (81%) and as normal or under-weight (96%). A paired analysis between children’s self-efficacy (M = 8.30) and parents’ other-efficacy (M = 6.93) revealed that, relative to their children, parents were less confident in their child’s sport abilities ( p < .001). Multivariate analysis of variance revealed differences in how children perceived the heavy athlete or tall athlete described in the vignette (V = 0.42, F(14,73) = 3.76, p < .001). Decomposing this result with discriminant analysis revealed self-confidence, work ethic, and friendships to be the strongest contributors to the difference. These initial findings suggest that children and parents differ in their perceptions of children’s sporting abilities and that body weight may influence how children value potential teammates, both of which may impact the sport experience for children. Future research is needed to better understand how others perceptions are related to differences in self-perceptions across body weights.Acknowledgments: The project is supported by a Sport Participation Research Initiative (SPRI) grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC 862-2011-0006) and Sport Canada.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".