Organized Extracurricular Activities: Are In‐School and Out‐of‐School Activities Associated With Different Outcomes for Canadian Youth?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Participation in extracurricular activities can have positive effects on youth, with greater participation associated with higher academic as well as better socioemotional and behavioral outcomes. Little research has examined differential effects of in-school and out-of-school activities. METHODS: This study examines in-school and out-of-school extracurricular activities for 14- to 17-year-olds using a population-based sample of Canadian youth. Associations with socioemotional and academic outcomes, and having tried smoking, alcohol, and marijuana were examined. RESULTS: Weekly participation in both in-school and out-of-school activities were associated with positive and negative outcomes. In particular, youth who participated in out-of-school activities or in both in-school and out-of-school activities had better socioemotional outcomes. Academic outcomes were associated with in-school and out-of-school sports and nonsport activities. Youth who participated weekly in nonsport activities regardless of the context (in-school or out-of-school) were less likely to have tried smoking, alcohol, or marijuana. However, weekly participation in in-school sports was associated with an increased likelihood of failing a course; youth who participated weekly in out-of-school sports were more likely to have tried alcohol. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that participation in extracurricular activities, regardless of context, encourage positive youth development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".