Losing sight of the goal: Highlighting parent concerns within Canadian minor hockey programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of negative parent behaviours in the Canadian minor hockey system has long been an issue affecting developing athletes, coaches, and other invested parties (e.g., referees, administrators). While quality research has previously explored (a) how poor parent behaviour can affect others within the minor hockey space and (b) what factors could be causing unwanted parent behaviours, little scholarship has given parents an opportunity to think through and reflect on their specific lived experience while inhabiting the hockey parent role. As such, the aim of the present study was to provide this group with an opportunity to discuss the issues they have experienced within their minor hockey communities. To accomplish this, current hockey parents were recruited to engage in a web-based discussion using the platform ThoughtExchangetm. Through a two-step process, participants (n = 75) were able to, first, disclose anonymized feedback regarding their lived minor hockey experiences before, second, rating their fellow participants’ input in terms of agreement and personal relevance. As such, consensus regarding which issues appeared most important to the group were rendered visible and categorized qualitatively by the research team. Participants agreed that a lack of organizational (a) support, (b) transparency, and (c) focus on players’ needs were areas requiring the most attention within their minor hockey programming. Given these findings, it is suggested that working to build less opaque and more child-centric minor hockey environments through updated policies and norms could be a fruitful means for programmers to mitigate poor parent behaviour in the future.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".