The Financial and Facility Status of Campus Recreation Programs at NIRSA Colleges and Universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Directors of campus recreation at NIRSA colleges and universities in the US and Canada were surveyed to determine: (a) the number of schools that have built, within the preceding three years, major indoor as well as major outdoor campus recreation facilities and the number of institutions planning to do so within the next three years; (b) the usage and scheduling priorities covering all campus recreation facilities; (c) the sources of funding for the construction of these major facilities and sites; and (d) the sources of funding for operational activities for campus recreation. The data were analyzed in terms of school size, location, and whether public or private in nature. The findings revealed that 56% of the institutions surveyed had either recently built new major indoor student recreation centers or were planning to do so, within the next three years. In terms of major outdoor facilities or sites, the percentage was 41%. The majority of construction funds for indoor and outdoor facilities/sites as well as operational funds for programs and activities came from future student fees at most of the public schools. Typically, private schools had the majority of their monies for both indoor and outdoor facilities emanating from private sources while the majority of operating costs was covered through the general fund of the institutions. The sharing of facilities continues with both physical education and with athletics; and, the directors of campus recreation, generally speaking, felt comfortable with such arrangements, even when such arrangements include having athletic and physical education activities take precedence in usage over those of campus recreation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".