Decision-makers’ interactions that co-determine Positive youth development through sport: a critical realist examination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to examine Portuguese coaches, coach developers, and sport administrators’ (i.e. decision-makers) interactions that co-determine positive youth development through sport. A critical realist approach was adopted using Elder-Vass’s framework on the causal power of social structures. A total of 47 Portuguese decision-makers from provincial and national sport organisations were interviewed, leading to 2350 minutes of interview data. The findings provide insights into how participants varied in their perspectives on the place of performance and positive youth development in the youth sport system. Coaches and sport administrators believed performance was the main priority and their discourses were shaped by (inter)actions with norm circles influencing their dispositions and beliefs about the purpose of youth sport. Conversely, coach developers challenged the status quo and were much more deliberate in wanting to change the priorities of the youth sport system. Coach developers were in a privileged position to ‘broker’ change by using their individual agency to work to further include positive youth development. Considering the pressures imposed by norm circles and the active role of individual agency, practical and theoretical implications are offered to develop a youth sport system where positive youth development can become a legitimate and worthwhile pursuit.
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 | 0.020 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".