MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027057283 · doi:10.1123/jsm.2019-0201

Parent Well-Being Through Community Youth Sport: An Autoethnography of “Sideline” Participation

2020· article· en· W3027057283 on OpenAlexaff
Katie Misener

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sport Management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningAutoethnographyAutonomyContext (archaeology)PsychologyPersonal developmentInterpersonal communicationSocial psychologyPublic relationsSociologyPedagogyGender studiesPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parents are central stakeholders within the youth sport context, yet their own health and well-being can be compromised due to the extensive commitment required to support their child’s sport development. Against a backdrop of transformative sport service research and eudaimonic well-being, the study presents an autoethnography of my experience as a parent attempting to subvert the traditional role of parent–spectator by engaging in “sideline” physical activity simultaneous to my child’s sport. A secondary purpose is to identify the program and facility design attributes within the community sport environment that facilitate or inhibit the well-being of parents via simultaneous participation. This study highlights how the lines between researcher and subject can be blurred to challenge taken-for-granted assumptions and strengthen well-being through mastery, autonomy, personal growth, interpersonal relations, and self-acceptance. Through lived experience and personal voice, I hope that my story will open new possibilities for transformative practices within community sport.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sport ManagementSame topicSport Psychology and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207