The Duality of Sport Social Workers Coaching Critical Positive Youth Development Within Competitive Youth Sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To meet the diverse needs of youth athletes within contemporary society, the privilege and responsibility of youth sport coaching must be reimagined. Critical positive youth development (CPYD)—which is grounded in Freire’s critical consciousness—emphasizes the urgency to empower youth to promote social justice and increase their ability to contribute to societal change. Considering the scarcity of CPYD in coach education, sport social workers may offer unique educational experiences and critical learning opportunities that may help fulfill a CPYD mandate within the youth sport landscape. From a social constructivist perspective, the aim of the current study was to explore the duality of sport social workers coaching competitive youth sport. Findings from 10 sport social workers suggest that the values, knowledge, and skills of the social work profession—particularly sport social work—seem to offer a transferable skillset and lessons to be emulated by CPYD coach education. For instance, because of their unique education and training, social workers are taught to use a strengths-based approach, maintain a holistic perspective, and teach life skills that contribute to PYD. However, findings also emphasize the notion that education may not solve all challenges concerning the need to foster CPYD, as many other variables make up the sport system.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| 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".