MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2944319213

Enabling Social Capital Development: An Examination of the Festival of Neighborhoods in Kitchener, Ontario

2005· article· en· W2944319213 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Felice Yuen, Troy D. Glover

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Park and Recreation Administration · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueCommunity Health and Development
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSocial capitalGovernment (linguistics)SeriousnessContext (archaeology)Individual capitalCommunity developmentPublic relationsPolitical scienceSociologyEconomic growthSocial scienceEconomic capitalGeographyHuman capitalEconomicsLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

At present, there is a deep concern among scholars and policymakers of an alleged decline in social capital within contemporary society. Social capital refers to the relational resources embedded within social networks. These resources are integral to the social fabric that gives substance to a healthy community. Illustrative of the seriousness with which policymakers have viewed the decline of social capital, all levels of government, both domestically and internationally, have sought to address this issue. However, at present, most government initiatives have concentrated more on measuring and monitoring social capital than on actually developing it. With this in mind, there is a documented need for research to examine and evaluate successful programs that have been implemented to facilitate the creation of social capital. The purpose of this paper was to examine how a program called the Festival of Neighborhoods (FON) in the City of Kitchener, Ontario, facilitates the creation of social capital. The FON encourages local citizens to organize and enter neighborhood events (e.g., picnics, street parties, barbecues) in a random draw for a $10,000 community improvement grant. The explicit intent behind this initiative is to encourage neighbors to (re)build relationships that will strengthen the social networks within their neighborhoods. The researchers examined the FON and its attempt to build social capital by interviewing members of the FON organizing committee and representatives from the City of Kitchener who were involved with the initiative. Two major themes were identified from the data collected. The first theme, context, recognized the importance of leisure as a rationale and incentive to encourage neighbors to come together. On the one hand, the festivals that were organized provided events that brought people together (socializing), and in so doing, attempted to strengthen relationships and a sense of solidarity among participants. On the other hand, the improvement grant generated spin-off effects in terms of motivating people toward meaningful collective action (mobilizing), while building vertical relationships between the City and the neighborhood groups. The second theme, organizational structure, acknowledged the flexibility and facilitative philosophy that the organizing committee brought to the FON. That is, the particular structure that we have identified as flexible and facilitative was purposefully designed by the FON to foster citizen involvement and participation. The findings in this study suggest that public leisure agencies can have an important impact on the development of social capital by facilitating the development of horizontal and vertical relationships. With the recognition that people are unlikely to come together without a purpose, leisure becomes a powerful incentive and tool in attracting people and encouraging them to build relationships. In particular, a casual leisure event, like a festival, can give neighbors a reason to socialize, and a project-based leisure activity, like the planning involved with determining how to use a $10,000 improvement grant, can give neighbors a reason to mobilize. Based on the success of the FON, we recommend that public agencies consider the following guidelines if they wish to address social capital development as a policy commitment: (1) Have a common purpose (such as leisure) for people to gather around, (2) focus on the people and the development of relationships, (3) recognize people’s efforts and successes, (4) be a facilitator, (5) be flexible, and (6) be responsive.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,612
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,988

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,067
Tête enseignante GPT0,393
Écart entre enseignants0,326 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations7
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Park and Recreation AdministrationMême sujetCommunity Health and DevelopmentTravaux en français237 207