MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7138860515 · doi:10.1108/jced-04-2024-0010

An Integrated Knowledge Translation Approach to Developing A Story-Based Positive Youth Development Program in Sport

2024· article· en· W7138860515 on OpenAlexaff
Luc J. Martin, Karl Erickson, Jen Coletti, Kelsey Saizew, Cailie S. McGuire, Alex Maw, Chris Primeau, Meredith Wolff, Brandy Ladd, Jean Côté

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Character Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityImpactQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPositive Youth DevelopmentGeneral partnershipProcess (computing)Ice hockeyAthletesEliteYouth studiesQuality (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the established physical, social, and emotional benefits of participating in youth sport, such outcomes are not guaranteed. Indeed, purposeful efforts must be made to ensure that sport offerings are age-appropriate, promote engagement and enjoyment, and involve quality social relationships (e.g., Côté et al., 2020). The current article describes an integrated knowledge translation (iKT) partnership that developed a free story-based positive youth development (PYD) program for young ice hockey players (aged 10 to 12 years) in North America. The aim of the ‘1616 Program’ is to use elite ice hockey players as role models—through storytelling—to serve as motivating agents to introduce and engage young athletes with important concepts pertaining to PYD. Content from the general and sport-specific PYD literature (e.g., Côté et al., 2010; Lerner, 2006) informed decisions during program development, with the process generally being guided by the Knowledge-To-Action (KTA) framework (Graham et al., 2006). Herein, we describe the iKT collaborative process that could serve as a template for other researchers interested in partnering with relevant invested partners to create youth development programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Character EducationSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207