MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4372053900 · doi:10.1504/ijsmm.2023.130696

Barriers to youth sport participation in dense urban centres

2023· article· en· W4372053900 on OpenAlexaffabout
Norm O', N.A. Reilly, Tony Hernández, Benoît Séguin, Lance Warwick, Tahereh Hasani

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sport Management and Marketing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of OttawaWilfrid Laurier UniversityToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Youth engagementYouth participationCitizen journalismSport managementSociologyPositive Youth DevelopmentPsychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceGeographySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examines barriers that urban youth face which limit participation in sport. Conceptually, this work distinguishes between three categories of active (participatory) engagement: 1) those that never participated; 2) those that used to participate; 3) those that do participate; and their level of passive engagement. A set of hypotheses for urban youth sport participation incorporating external and intrinsic factors are tested and guided by the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). Based on pre-interviews with urban youth (n = 53), a large-sample survey (n = 3,003) of youth in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver was conducted. Results identified four segments of urban youth participation; a multiple regression analysis supported the TPB as an appropriate lens for understanding urban youth sport participation. The development of segments of urban youth based on sport engagement has implications for managers involved in promoting participation. The article contributes theoretically through the extension of the TPB in the context of urban youth participation.

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 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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sport Management and MarketingSame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207