Technical Directors’ Perspectives of Selection Experiences in Canadian Youth Soccer Clubs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selection is an omni-present phenomenon in youth sport organizations, contributing to an inevitable experience for athletes during adolescence. Selection experiences may elicit a variety of affective, cognitive, behavioural, and social outcomes. Particularly, when athletes are deselected or the selection process is undertaken/communicated poorly, young individuals may experience maladaptive consequences. Despite the prevalence and importance of selection in youth sport, research examining its structure and communication from the perspective of all stakeholders involved in within youth sport organizations is limited. The purpose of the present study was to explore the perspectives of selection experiences from a technical director perspective. A grounded theory approach was chosen for this study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 8 male technical directors of licensed Canadian youth soccer clubs and 3 coach educators (2 female, 1 male) from Canada Soccer. Several methods to establish trustworthiness were applied and the analysis resulted in three higher order themes. First, ideal selection represented the participants’ vision of how the selection process should be undertaken. In particular, the subthemes of equality and policies were discussed. Second, the participants mentioned factors that inhibited ideal selection procedures. Subthemes were the description of ‘the system’ and as athlete individual differences Lastly, current robust processes and communication strategies were described as subthemes of real selection experiences in clubs. These results highlight the power of perceived external norms and established tendencies in guiding clubs to design selection experiences. Applied considerations and future research directions will be discussed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".