Understanding the Motivations to Host: A Study of Junior Hockey Host Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In North America, junior ice hockey poses a large transitional stage for athletes who wish to pursue elite careers. In their pursuance of elite careers, many players will be housed with host or billet families (Wright et al., 2019). Within the literature focused on junior hockey, host families have been uncovered as important social support systems when studying junior hockey athlete experiences (Allain, 2004; Bruner et al., 2008; Norris, 2017). Previous research surrounding junior hockey hosting programs has focused on the experiences of athletes (Allain, 2004; Bruner et al., 2008; Norris, 2017), the psychosocial development of junior hockey players (Sturges, 2018), and group functioning between former junior hockey players, parents, and host families (Wright et al., 2019). Although host families play a vital role in the success of a junior hockey organization, there has yet to be a study focusing solely on junior hockey hosts. The purpose of this study was to understand individual’s motivations for hosting junior hockey players and the factors that influence host families to host over multiple seasons. To fulfill the study’s purpose, an inductive constructivist qualitative research design was used to study current Canadian junior hockey host families. Participants (n=13) were sampled from six Canadian junior hockey organizations across four different leagues. Data were collected through virtual semi-structured interviews, which were analyzed using elements of constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2000). Through a process of initial and focused coding, four categories emerged and were divided between factors motivating individuals to host and factors contributing to long term hosting. The findings of this study could lead to continued improvement of hosting programs in junior hockey. Further research is necessary to identify factors that cause individuals to discontinue hosting and explore hosting in other sport settings.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".