“They're watching. I have to be perfect. I can't do anything wrong”: Understanding the barriers and facilitators to sport amongst self-identified girl and women athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participation in youth sport offers several benefits, including improved physical health, enhanced emotional well-being, and increased lifelong physical activity. Despite these advantages, a gender disparity exists in Canada, with one-third of girls dropping out of sport during adolescence compared to one-tenth of boys. This study aimed to understand the psychosocial factors affecting girls' and women's sport involvement and to identify steps to support their continued participation. Through discussions with members of the “athlete triangle” (athletes, coaches, and sport parents), the study's purpose was to understand the facilitators and barriers to the psychosocial development of self-identified girls and women involved in youth sport. Three focus groups were conducted with youth athletes (2 women), sport parents (3 women), and sport coaches (3 women, 1 man). Follow-up 1-on-1 interviews with key focus group participants (1 athlete, 1 parent, 1 coach) were organized, supported by photovoice reflections. All conversations were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Participants highlighted the importance of positive bi-directional relationships between athletes, parents, and coaches; holistic training; and the fostering of athletes’ self-efficacy in creating a positive youth sport environment. Common barriers included harsh self-criticism; unfavorable comparisons to others; perceived pressure from teammates, parents, and coaches; and the professionalization of youth sport. This initial study was the first step towards designing an intervention meant to positively impact girls’ and women’s experiences in sport. With these findings, we aim to ameliorate existing and/or create new services that positively affect girls’ and women’s decisions to continue their participation in sport.
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 | 0.008 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".