Extracurricular Activity Participation and the Acquisition of Developmental Assets: Differences Between Involved and Noninvolved Canadian High School Students
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In order to prepare students for adulthood and responsible citizenship, most high schools offer extracurricular activities designed to facilitate the learning of a wide range of competencies. The purpose of this study was to examine how participation in a single or a combination of extracurricular school activities for high school students may impact both their developmental outcomes and their level of school engagement. Results indicated differences between youth who participated in a combination of both sport and nonsport activities as well as sport only activities compared to youth not involved in extracurricular activities on a number of developmental assets and school engagement. It is recommended that parents and adult leaders encourage and support students in their involvement in various extracurricular activities, including high school sport, in order to facilitate positive youth development. Notes Note. Sport = Sport only; Extra = Other extracurricular only; Both = Both sport and other extracurricular; None = No activities.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it