Advancing a grounded theory of parental support in competitive girls’ golf
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parental support in youth sport has been associated with positive athlete outcomes, such as sport enjoyment and continued participation. Although research has demonstrated the significant and influential role parents fulfil in the youth sport context, there remains a dearth of theoretical frameworks detailing parental support in youth sport and an absence of empirical research examining parental support across athlete development stages and sports. The present study sought to examine athletes' perceptions of parental support, with a view to advancing a grounded theory of parental support in youth golf. Fourteen online synchronous focus groups were conducted with an international sample (Australia, Canada, England, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland) of 61 girls, in the specialising (n = 27) and investment stages (n = 34) of athlete development. Data were analysed in three phases: open-coding, axial coding, and theoretical integration. The substantive grounded theory is constructed on the core category of 'Individual Parental Support Preferences'. This core category is underpinned by four sub-categories of parental support which were evident across development stages: instrumental, informational, emotional, and autonomy support, and is influenced by a host of athlete (e.g., athletes' performance), parent (e.g., parents' knowledge), and contextual characteristics (e.g., location). Unconditional parental support is an important aspect of emotional support, however the concept of adopting a person-first approach to sport parenting is novel. These results provide a rich and novel insight of parental support in girls' golf, advancing a grounded theoretical understanding of parental support mechanisms in a youth sport context.
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 | 0.024 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".