Investigating Sport Stakeholders’ Understanding of Behaviour Management within a Competitive Youth Baseball Team
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following study employed an instrumental case study to investigate sport stakeholders’ understandings of behavioural management strategies used in competitive youth baseball, including the identification of common strategies and interpretations of these as punishment or discipline. Twenty-one participants, from one competitive (AAA) all-boys baseball team, including three coaches, eleven baseball players, and seven parents, were recruited to participate in an individual semi-structured interview. Interviews ranged between 30 and 150 min, and data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Several behaviour management tactics were identified, of which exercise, benching and yelling negative comments were most often reported. While participants interpreted excessive exercise and benching as punitive and/or disciplinary approaches to behavioural management, yelling was consistently viewed as punitive. Participants confused punishment and discipline as interchangeable, thus suggesting a lack of awareness regarding developmentally appropriate strategies of behavioural management and highlighting the normalization of certain punitive tactics in youth sport. The results underscore the necessity of imparting knowledge to the sports community regarding age-appropriate behavioural management interventions to foster safe and enjoyable athletic experiences for youth competitors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".