Centring Indigenous Voices and Experiences to Advance Positive Youth Development in Sport Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While sport can be an avenue for positive youth development (PYD), much of the PYD in sport research has been generated within a western, colonial context and the experiences of Indigenous peoples are often overlooked and underrepresented. Within Canada, Indigenous youth are the fastest growing cohort of youth, and their voices and experiences must play a critical role in advancing sport research, programming, and policy. The purpose of this presentation is to assert that Indigenous peoples must be centred to advance PYD in sport research, and ultimately to inform sport programming that is grounded in the voices and experiences of Indigenous peoples. Three critical areas will be addressed. First, we will overview research exploring Indigenous youth development in sport and physical activity, highlighting culturally unique findings that have contributed to the PYD in sport literature. Second, we will critically appraise the need for culturally unique approaches to PYD in sport research, which requires an understanding of the diversity and distinctiveness of Indigenous identities to consider the cultural relevancy of research approaches. Two strengths-based Indigenous frameworks, the Circle of Courage and the Four Rs, will be proposed as worthy of exploration within the PYD in sport literature. Third, we will discuss how to further advance PYD in sport research by amplifying diverse and distinct Indigenous voices, engaging in anti-racism programming and research, and considering intersecting social identities to understand diverse sport experiences. To maximize PYD in sport for Indigenous youth, we need to work with, learn from, and centre Indigenous peoples.
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 | 0.044 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.034 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".