MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413991125 · doi:10.1080/14927713.2025.2551513

Finding belonging through sport for children from low-income households: a grounded theory

2025· article· en· W4413991125 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Heather Nelson, Shelley Spurr, Jill Bally, Heather J.A. Foulds, Anthony de Padua

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure/Loisir · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan PolytechnicUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrounded theoryLow incomePsychologySociologyDemographic economicsSocial psychologyEconomicsSocioeconomicsQualitative researchSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this constructivist grounded theory (GT) research, the experiences of children from low-income households participating in traditional karate and the viewpoints of their parents were explored, which resulted in the discovery of finding belonging as a basic social process. The children participated in traditional karate classes that were funded by Dream Brokers (a charitable organization that offers support services). Semi-structured, intensive interviews (n = 34) were completed with children participating in karate (n = 8) and their parents (n = 7). An emerging GT encompassed a basic social process titled ‘finding belonging through sport’. The grounded theory described the fundamental reasons children and parents sought participation in sport, as well as how a lack of belonging hindered their ability to participate. The basic social process of finding belonging through sport was supported by interrelated subprocesses including 1) physical belonging, 2) social belonging, and 3) building competence and confidence.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.011
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeisure/LoisirSame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207