“Supporting my daughter, the best way I can”: Parental support in youth golf
Bibliographic record
Abstract
emphasized the importance of parental support in youth sports as they provide financial, informational, and emotional support to the youth-athlete. Parents also play a "significant role in shaping youth sport experiences" (Sheridan et al., 2014, p. 198). Research around parental support has been conducted in sports such as tennis, gymnastics, and football. The aim of the present study was to examine the parents' perspective of parental support in female youth golf, exploring how they support their female youth golfers, and if the support changes through their child's development. Twenty-two semi structured interviews were conducted with parents (14 fathers, 10 mothers) of high-performance female golfers in the specializing or investment stages of Ct e's (1999) DMSP. Participants were recruited from six countries (England, Ireland, Scotland, New Zealand, Australia, Canada). Using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2012) six higher order themes were identified, namely, parental support: emotional, practical, technical, financial, organizational, and reflective support. The results align with the grounded theory of parental support (Burke et al., 2023a) providing an insight into the parents' perspective of providing support aligning with informational, emotional, and instrumental support of the theory. Furthermore, the current research presented novel findings regarding reflective support that parents provide. Findings highlighted that parental support changed depending on temporal differences (place in the golf season) and their daughter's development. The present research reinforces the need to provide support programs for parents based on their needs, rather than programs designed from a governing body or coaches perspective.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".