Social integration in the activity peer group in sport and non‐sport organized activities: Links with depressive symptoms in adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Organized activities can provide a conducive context for various social processes that may prevent internalizing problems. Some types of organized activities, such as team sports, seem particularly favorable to these positive experiences. The aim of this 4‐year longitudinal study is to describe the changes in the feeling of social integration into the organized activity peer group and to examine whether this social process predicts depressive symptoms in adolescence. Team sports also are proposed to promote a high sense of social integration. A total of 292 adolescents (62% female) were followed annually from ages 14 to 17. The type of main organized activity practiced and the feeling of social integration into the activity peer group was measured each year. Depressive symptoms were self‐reported at the beginning and end of this period. Latent growth analyses showed that social integration into the organized activity peer group was high and decreasing during adolescence. Social integration was higher in team sports compared to individual sports and non‐sport activities as a whole. Finally, a high and sustained level of social integration during adolescence was associated with a low level of depressive symptoms at the end of adolescence, controlling for important covariates. These results suggest that organized activities, particularly team sports, provide a favorable context for developing a feeling of social integration, and that this may protect against depressive symptoms.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".