Bibliographic record
Abstract
College of Kinesiology Research Theme: Child and youth health and development Introduction: High school sports are recognized for their numerous positive impacts, as evidenced by extensive research. Despite this, the unique experiences of individuals involved in specific sports, such as football, remain underexplored. This study aimed to address this gap by examining the perspectives of coaches and former student-athletes who participated in one Saskatchewan high school football program that was intentionally structured to foster character development. Methods: This study employed an intrinsic case study design to explore the perspectives of former participants in the described high school football program. Using snowball sampling, two coaches (minimum 3 years of experience) and four former student-athletes (graduated between 1 - 6 years prior) were recruited. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and document analysis. All interviews were transcribed, and documents were reviewed, with key findings recorded in a research journal. Finally, reflexive thematic analysis was employed to identify and interpret themes within the data. Results: Analysis of documents, as well as insights from coaches and former student-athletes, revealed three key themes. The first theme explores how high school football serves as a microcosm of life’s emotional fluctuations, exposing athletes’ raw character during extreme highs and lows. It examines how the prevailing win-focused framework contributes to these emotional fluctuations, which can serve as opportunities for character development, while also contrasting this framework with the ideals promoted by coaches and high school football regulatory bodies. The second theme explores the design of the program and the coaches’ intent behind its structure, which forms the foundation of the program. Specifically, it investigates the elements coaches have incorporated into the framework, how they implement their approach, and the underlying motivations behind each structural decision. The third theme addresses the experiences this program’s design and intent facilitated for both coaches and former student-athletes. Coaches, having observed multiple program iterations, identified both beneficial (e.g., strong relationships, team camaraderie, and core values) and problematic elements (e.g., work-life balance, tough playtime decisions, and limited reach with some student-athletes). Former student-athletes reflected on how the program shaped them, highlighting both positive influences (e.g., development of life skills, community and relationships, and the sport itself) and negative influences (e.g., coaching challenges and discipline dynamics, balancing demands and expectations, and physical and social risks). Conclusion: The participants' insights offer a deeper understanding of their experiences in this unique football program. These perspectives provide valuable information to high school coaches seeking to develop student athletes' abilities and characteristics beyond the playing field.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.009 |
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".