"I don't care about the candy; I care about the game" exploring the impact of food rewards in youth recreation ice hockey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Children involved in organized sport report unhealthier diets than those who are not, and this may be due in part to the pervasive use of unhealthy foods as rewards within youth sport. The purpose of this study was to explore the use of food as a reward in youth sport and the perceived impact it has on children's motivation to participate in recreational ice hockey. Methods: A constructionist paradigm, with a relativist ontology, and subjective and transactional epistemology guided this instrumental case study. Criterion-based and snowball sampling was used to recruit children aged 4-12 (n = 39), parents (n = 24), and coaches (n = 12) within central and northeastern Ontario, Canada. Parents and children participated in focus groups while coaches took part in individual interviews. Transcribed audio recordings underwent inductive thematic analysis. Results: Three key themes were constructed: 1. Food in hockey, 2. The how and why of motivating athletes, and 3. Opinions of sponsorship in youth sport. Conclusions: Ultimately, children's participation and effort in hockey would continue without rewards; however, coaches and parents continue to offer rewards to motivate and celebrate performance. The findings from this study highlight the need to educate parents and coaches on what children truly value about their sport participation and develop strategies for celebrating success and effort in a healthier way.Acknowledgments: This research project is supported in part by funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".