"What are we going to do with all of our time? ": Parental perceptions of youth sport in its absence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In December of 2019, an infectious disease, COVID-19, began spreading globally. As a result, many institutions and governing bodies took safety precautions, ranging from social distancing restrictions to the cancellation of programs and events. Globally, youth sport experienced a complete shutdown, leaving young athletes and their families without sport participation. While necessary, this was unfortunate as youth sport provides many benefits for participants. Due to these benefits, it can be assumed that young athletes were missing their sport participation; however, it is unclear whether or not these feelings are replicated by their parents. As such, this study aimed to explore the attitudes and perceptions of youth sport parents regarding their child's sport participation in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in order to fully explore the perceptions of youth sport parents. Guided by Braun and Clarke's (2006) six step guide to thematic analysis, researchers constructed four major themes: (a) Parental sacrifice for youth sport participation, (b) Children have time to be children, (c) Parents struggle to replicate youth sport, (d) Parents miss their own experiences. Findings from this study agree with previous research in that youth sport participation may result in sacrifices for both parents and athletes. Further, findings suggest that youth sport parents have personal connections to the youth sport context, such as social opportunities and spectator experiences, which drive their motivation for involvement. Understanding parental motivations for youth sport involvement may lead future researchers to uncovering the influences of parental behaviour in the youth sport context.Acknowledgments: This work was supported by an Insight Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [grant number 435-2020-0093, 2020]
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".