Sport, Physical Activity, and Health Inequalities Among Youth Who Are Incarcerated: Perspectives of Youth Custody Workers in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current article seeks to understand, and critically analyze the implications of, how youth custody workers understand the relationship between sport, physical activity, and health among youth who are incarcerated. Data was collected through surveys (n = 15) and semi-structured interviews (n = 16) with youth custody workers in Ontario, Canada. We present and analyze three themes emerging from participants’ narratives: the potential for sport and physical activity to contribute, in a holistic way, to the physical, mental, and social health of youth who are incarcerated; the possibility for sport and physical activity to create space for building “therapeutic alliances” between staff and youth, which can improve the mental and social health of youth who are incarcerated; and perceptions of health deficits among youth who are incarcerated and their implications for social inequality. Through an analysis of these themes, we deepen the limited scholarly analysis of sport, physical activity, and health among young persons who are incarcerated and connect these discussions to broader considerations of social determinants of health (that is, structural and social factors that create health inequities) as a matter of social justice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".