Trajectories of team and individual sports participation in childhood and links with internalizing problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this 5‐year longitudinal study is to identify trajectories of team and individual sports participation in childhood, and to compare these trajectories on different types of internalizing problems. Parents reported their children's annual sports participation from the ages of 6–10 (n = 785) and teachers reported internalizing problems (depression, anxiety, social withdrawal) at the beginning and at the end of this period. The study used latent class growth analyses to identify two trajectories of team sports and two trajectories of individual sports participation were identified: (1) high participation, and (2) low participation. Considering baseline level of internalizing problems and gender, children in the high participation team sports trajectory show significantly fewer depression, anxiety, and social withdrawal behaviors at age 10 than those in the low participation team sports trajectory. No differences between individual sports trajectories were observed. Comparison with joint trajectory groups partially confirmed these results but also showed that sustained participation in multiple individual sports could also be linked to decreased anxiety. Our findings suggest that participation in team sports should be encouraged to promote certain aspects of children's mental health.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".