MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361297539 · doi:10.1080/1750984x.2023.2188120

A scoping review of the use of theory in positive youth development and athlete transition literature

2023· review· en· W4361297539 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeci-PsychologyPsychosocialDevelopmental stage theoriesPositive Youth DevelopmentDevelopment theoryGrounded theoryQualitative researchInclusion (mineral)Sport psychologyNursing theoryDevelopmental psychologyApplied psychologySocial psychologyMEDLINESociologySocial sciencePsychotherapistAutonomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The psychosocial development of young people in sports settings continues to be a popular area of study. Researchers examining youth athletes may draw on developmental theories from broader fields of psychology when choosing which psychosocial outcomes to study. However, it is currently unclear which theories inform youth sport research, and how these theories have been used. Therefore, a scoping review of the literature in positive youth development and youth athlete transitions in sport was conducted to investigate the use of theory in these areas. Two databases were systematically searched (APA PsychINFO and SportDiscus) and 10,453 abstracts were screened for inclusion in the review. Information was extracted from 207 articles and dissertations. Results indicated that the most-used theories included Ecological Theories of Human Development, (Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. University Press) and Self-Determination Theory (Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.). Theories were most often used in peripheral ways to contextualise or discuss research findings (Sandelowski, (1993 Sandelowski, M. (1993). Theory unmasked: The uses and guises of theory in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 16(3), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770160308.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Theory unmasked: The uses and guises of theory in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 16(3), 213–218.). The use of theory more centrally (e.g. theory testing) was less common. In the future, researchers could draw on theories more fully to guide their hypotheses, examine whether non-developmental theories are appropriate to use with different populations, and ensure that research in youth sport is informed by theoretical progress in developmental psychology.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it