Towards the development of a quality youth sport experience measure: Understanding participant and stakeholder perspectives
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quality sport experiences may be a key underlying mechanism through which continued sport participation may facilitate positive youth development. However, what constitutes a quality sport experience for youth is poorly understood due to a lack of comprehensiveness among existing measures. This study aimed to identify the salient factors that constitute quality sport experience for youth by capturing athletes and stakeholder perspectives with a broader goal of developing a more robust quality sport experiences measure. A total of 53 youth athletes and stakeholders (i.e., parents, coaches, and sport administrators) completed semi-structured interviews or focus groups about what they felt were important aspects of a quality sport experience for youth. Inductive content analysis of the data identified four themes representing important indicators for a quality sport experience for youth: fun and enjoyment, opportunity for sport skill development and progress, social support and sense of belonging, and open and effective communication. These higher order themes were found among each of the groups that have important interpersonal relationships with athletes, as well as among athletes themselves. Each of these themes were also related to one another. Collectively, findings outline a framework to understand what constitutes a quality sport experience for youth. The Quality Sport Experience Framework for Youth will help in the development of a quantitative tool to assess this construct and enable researchers to examine how these experiences contribute to continued engagement in sport and positive developmental outcomes among youth sport participants.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it