Searching for positive youth development: A scoping review of sport for development programs serving marginalized yout
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past two decades, the creation and application of sport for development (SFD) programs has permeated communities and groups deemed to lack social resources. The current scoping review examined the literature around SFD programs and marginalized youth. A broad approach was taken to achieve an outline of the literature around the delivery, methodology, and measures involved when exploring the efficacy of SFD interventions applied to marginalized youth. A search of three key terms: youth, sport, and at-risk yielded 14,834 possible studies that were reduced to 359 after a title and abstract search. Studies were then coded by two reviewers for location, year of publication, study design, participants, operationalization of 'marginalized', types of sport programs, and associated outcomes. Twenty-three studies were included, predominately published between 2012-2018, using qualitative (43%), quantitative (35%), or mixed (22%) designs. Most participants were males (70%). When defining marginalization, socioeconomic status was primarily used as a descriptor (61%), as well as behaviour status (22%), psychological status (13%), and school enrolment (4%). Most programs were community-based (48%), administered for 12 weeks or more (61%), and aimed to strengthen youth's psychological well being (26%), or social skills (44%). This review demonstrates a predominantly social approach to the operationalization of marginalized, and the creation, facilitation, and evaluation of SFD programs for marginalized youth. Although 18% of the studies included qualitative methods, an experiential aspect of program evaluation was lacking. Further exploration of marginalized youths' experiences within SFD programs may prove valuable in understanding participation and development in this population
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 | 0.027 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".