Narratives on sport for development among side-lined youth: Socializing agent or empowering intervention?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sport for Development (SFD) programs mobilize sport to fulfill many 'developmental' goals. Little is known about the specific benefits of SFD programs for youth who face developmental barriers due to socio-economic challenges. Debate ensues over whether the deployment of sport programming is to educate and empower marginalized ('sidelined') youth or reproduce standardized (socializing) behaviours. This study explores the developmental outcomes of SFD programs through the narratives of side-lined youth. Eleven youth (4 boys, 7 girls) between the ages of 13 and 24 from lower socioeconomic areas in Toronto participated in life history interviews while seven adults (4 men, 3 women) who acted as an SFD program facilitator or director were interviewed to share their childhood sport experiences. Interviews were narratively analyzed. Six narratives resulted from the analysis, each illustrating inner/personal development and outer network/social development: The Utilizer used sport for personal development and to form a network leading to goal achievement; the Escapee used sport as a therapeutic tool and to build a network of support; the Socialite used sport to build interpersonal skills and a social network; the Support seeker gained confidence in practicing help-seeking behaviour while building a network of support; the Pressured by Sport experienced performance anxiety demotivating them from forming healthy social bonds; and the Exploited felt used by sport as their fees were collected to fund others' participation. These narratives can be used by facilitators and program developers to optimize the developmental outcomes of SFD programs for side-lined youth.Acknowledgments: Sekou Gregg, Keren Annor, Ben Arhens, Michelle Campbell, Ose Omorogie
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".