MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021528566 · doi:10.1080/04419057.2005.9674385

Volunteerism and Serious Leisure: The Case of the Francophone Games

2005· article· en· W2021528566 on OpenAlexaffabout
François Gravelle, Léon Larocque

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Leisure Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationVolunteerPsychologyVolunteer workSample (material)FrenchWork (physics)Leisure studiesSocial psychologyTest (biology)Applied psychologyLeisure timePublic relationsPolitical scienceGeographyPhysical activityMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The contribution of volunteers to sport and recreation throughout Canada has long been recognised. The purpose of this research was to identify the variables which explain, and to measure their importance as determinants of, volunteer involvement. The 2001 Francophone Games event was used as a basis to identify explanatory variables and to test the “serious leisure” concept. A sample of 122 volunteers, mainly employees of the University of Ottawa (F = 89 and M = 33), was obtained for this research. Data was collected using a questionnaire drawing upon the serious leisure model. The research confirms the relationship between serious leisure and volunteer work. This research also demonstrates that volunteer work is often perceived as a basis for “gain”. Maybe the “good ol' days” of free volunteer work are over and a re-assessment of policies by volunteer organisations should be put in place.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations28
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Leisure JournalSame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207