Strategic Program Development Practices to Enhance Grassroots 55-65+ Small-sided Football in Diverse International Contexts: The Art, Science and Politics of Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A significant growth in grassroots 55-65+ seniors’ small-sided football (e.g., 3v3, 4v4, 5v5, 6v6/futsal and walking football) programs has emerged in diverse settings on a global scale. Given the ad hoc nature of many program offerings to meet the unique needs and circumstances of older players, very little research has examined strategic program development practices to enhance and sustain participation in seniors’ small-sided football. Strategic program development is a complex and multifaceted process that provides a critical foundation for both quality assurance and quality enhancement. Case study research using multiple-case design suggests that no one size fits all, and that strategic program development draws upon a wide range of iterative and responsive program context, program planning, program leadership/coaching, and program impact assessment strategies to enhance and sustain player participation. This paper provides a conceptual framework and practical examples for strategic program development practices in diverse grassroots 55-65+ small-sided football contexts.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".