MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Understanding Recreation and Sport as a Rehabilitative Tool Within Juvenile Justice Programs

2002· article· en· W2074735120 on OpenAlex
David J. Williams, William B. Strean, Enrique Garcíá Bengoechea

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJuvenile and Family Court Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationRehabilitationPsychologyProcess (computing)JuvenilePublic relationsApplied psychologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceEcologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This article discusses relevant literature on the potential benefits of sport, recreation, and leisure, and how these benefits relate to rehabilitation of juveniles. Many professionals involved in juvenile rehabilitation believe sport and recreation are beneficial adjuncts to treatment programming; however, it can be difficult to structure sport and recreation in ways that directly correspond to treatment goals. The purpose of this article is to provide insights for professionals working with juveniles on how sport and recreation programming can be an effective means of helping to achieve rehabilitation goals. Attention is given to approaches, particularly the Teaching Games for Understanding model (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982), which can be used to effectively link recreation and sport to the rehabilitation process.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.203 · 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