They are still children: a scoping review of conditions for positive engagement in elite youth sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to characterise the key factors that influence positive engagement and desirable developmental outcomes in sport among elite youth athletes by summarising the methods, groups and pertinent topical areas examined in the extant published research. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: We searched the databases SPORTDiscus, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science and Sports Medicine & Education Index for peer-reviewed, published in English articles that considered the factors influencing positive developmental outcomes for athletes under 18 years competing at a national and/or international level. RESULTS: The search returned 549 articles, of which 43 met the inclusion criteria. 16 studies used a qualitative approach, 14 collected quantitative data, 2 adopted mixed methods and 11 were reviews. Seven articles involved athletes competing in absolute skill contexts (ie, against the best athletes of any age) while the majority involved athletes competing in relative skill contexts (ie, against the best in a specific age or developmental group). The studies described the characteristics of the athletes, as well as their training, relationships with others, social and physical environments, and/or their overall developmental pathways. CONCLUSION: Existing research on positive engagement in elite youth sport aligned with and mapped onto established models of positive development in youth sport more generally. Our findings further support that, while certain youth athletes may demonstrate extraordinary performance capabilities, they are still children who benefit from positive engagement prompted and reinforced by developmentally appropriate and supportive activities, relationships and environments.
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 | 0.015 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".