Bibliographic record
Abstract
Youth sport provides the opportunity for children to develop skills, motivation, and interests towards an active lifestyle. In Canada, more than 75% of young people (6-12 years old) are engaged in organized sport; more specifically, over 300 000 children participate in organized hockey. Hockey Canada recently decided to propose a new way to introduce young people to hockey by implementing the half-ice game play model for novice players (7-8 years old). Based on other similar contexts, changes in the culture of a sport tend to cause a divergence in public opinion, which makes them controversial, thus making implementation more difficult at the grassroots level. This paper studies the parents and coaches of young hockey players by measuring their beliefs regarding the half-ice game play model for novice hockey, in the preceding year to official implementation. More specifically, the objective is threefold: 1) to describe and verify parents’ and coaches’ beliefs regarding the half-ice game play model, 2) to examine their preferences regarding the format of play they believe is best for their children (or players), and 3) to verify if their beliefs differ based on their province or association. The sample consisted of 6,892 participants (81% parents, 19% coaches) from across Canada (8 provinces/regions). Questionnaires measuring socio-demographic factors, beliefs, and preferences regarding the play model were completed and group comparisons were conducted. Results indicate that mothers’ beliefs differ significantly from those of fathers and coaches. The second part of the analysis also reveals important differences, in terms of territorial predispositions towards the preferred format for novice ice hockey. To facilitate implementation of a new ice hockey program, the results of this study suggest there are crucial aspects to consider with respect to the education of parents and coaches. Further research perspectives based on a long-term approach are also discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".