MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390637890 · doi:10.1177/14732254231220594

Sport, Physical Activity, and Young People Who Are Incarcerated: A Scoping Review

2024· review· en· W4390637890 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mark Norman, Jesse Sonoda, Rosemary Ricciardelli

Bibliographic record

VenueYouth Justice · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsychologyRehabilitationCoping (psychology)Physical activityQualitative researchFoundation (evidence)Applied psychologyGerontologyCriminologySociologyMedicinePolitical scienceClinical psychologySocial sciencePsychiatryPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a scoping review of qualitative scholarly publications on sport and physical activity in secure custody facilities for young people published over a 22-year period, finding the literature remains geographically, substantively, and theoretically scant. We identify and assess predominant themes in the following four areas: (1) sport's potential contribution to young persons' rehabilitation and desistance; (2) the structure and organization of sport programs; (3) sport and coping with the experience of incarceration; and (4) other themes, including health outcomes and gender and race. Our scoping review provides a foundation for researchers and policymakers to advance knowledge about sport-based interventions in the lives of young people who are incarcerated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYouth JusticeSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207