MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103761909 · doi:10.1177/0899764009357794

Youth Religious Involvement and Adult Community Participation: Do Levels of Youth Religious Involvement Matter?

2010· article· en· W2103761909 on OpenAlexaffabout
Thomas Perks, Michael Haan

Bibliographic record

VenueNonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReligious organizationReligious communityPositive Youth DevelopmentVoluntary associationCommunity organizationTurnoverYouth participationSurvey data collectionYoung adultPsychologySociologySocial psychologyPolitical sciencePublic relationsDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The potential role that a religious background plays in determining adult levels of community participation in Canada has, to date, received limited research attention. The present study examines this relationship by testing whether involvement in a religious organization as a youth positively predicts four measures of adult community participation: informal volunteering, formal volunteering, participation in voluntary organizations, and community association membership. Drawing on data from the 2000 National Survey of Giving, Volunteering, and Participating (NSGVP), the findings show that involvement in a religious organization as a youth positively predicts all four adult community participation measures. The analysis also shows that, unlike other youth activities, the number of Canadian youths involved in religious organizations has declined in recent decades. The implications of this decline, combined with the evidence that religious involvement as a youth appears to be a good predictor of adult community participation, are discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations46
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNonprofit and Voluntary Sector QuarterlySame topicReligion, Society, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207