MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399871470 · doi:10.1080/14927713.2024.2366177

U.S. youth sports participation: analyzing the implications of generation, gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and family and community sport cultures

2024· article· en· W4399871470 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chris Knoester, Chris Bjork

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure/Loisir · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusEthnic groupRace (biology)Gender studiesSociologyPsychologyDemographyAnthropologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using data from the National Sports and Society Survey (N = 3,993), this study described and analyzed U.S. adults’ reports of their youth sports experiences. We considered patterns in ever having played a sport regularly while growing up, ever having played an organized sport, and then relative likelihoods of having never played an organized sport, played and dropped out of organized sports, or played an organized sport continually while growing up. We used binary and multinomial logistic regressions to assess the relevance of generational, gender, racial/ethnic, socioeconomic status, and family and community sport culture contexts for youth sports participation experiences. Overall, the findings highlight general increases in ever playing organized sports and ever playing organized sports and dropping out across generations. Increasing levels of female sports participation, emerging disparities by socioeconomic statuses, and the continual salience of family and community cultures of sport for participation are also striking.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeisure/LoisirSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207