Commitment to Public Leisure Service Providers: A Conceptual and Psychometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this investigation, we proposed and tested a scale designed to measure recreationists' commitment to public leisure Service providers. We suggested that the identity of public leisure Service providers is embedded in the facilities and settings they manage. Consequently, we feel that it is important to consider recreationists' commitment to public leisure Service providers by examining the meanings they associate with the settings and facilities managed by the agency in addition to their trust in the agency's ability to manage these settings in a manner consistent with these meanings. To operationalize this conceptualization, we drew upon the place bonding literature to construct a measure of agency commitment that consisted of five dimensions; affective attachment, place dependence, place identity, social bonding, and value congruence. Data were collected from two public leisure Service contexts: the Chattahoochee National Forest and Cleveland Metroparks. Our analyses offered strongest support for a correlated factor model consisting of the five proposed dimensions. In addition to offering a valid and reliable measure of public agency commitment, this paper also provides an example of the utility of structural equation modeling for the systematic testing of attitudinal scales.
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 | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".