MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104248578 · doi:10.22230/cjnser.2011v2n1a54

The Benefits and Economic Value of Community Recreation: Proposal for an Analytical Framework Based on an Exploratory Study

2011· article· fr· W2104248578 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Louise Briand, Nathalie Sauvé, Lucie Fréchette

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of nonprofit and social economy research · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationSociologyHumanitiesManagementPolitical scienceEconomicsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This article presents the results of an exploratory study on the impacts of a program provided by a community recreation centre. The study proposes an analytical framework to assess the impacts of recreation on young people and refers to product and impact concepts developed by Marée (2005). The proposed framework includes dimensions that are sufficiently precise to grasp the impacts of community recreation centres (benefits, savings, impacts on individuals, life settings, and society), yet also sufficiently broad to allow for the evaluation of the impacts of other social endeavours. RÉSUMÉ Cet article présente les résultats d'une recherche exploratoire qui étudie les effets d'un programme d'un centre communautaire de loisir. La recherche propose un cadre d'analyse des impacts du loisir chez les jeunes qui prend appui sur les concepts de produits et d'impacts développés par Marée (2005). Le cadre d'analyse proposé comporte des dimensions suffisamment précises pour appréhender les impacts des centres communautaires de loisir (bénéfices et économies pour les individus, les milieux de vie et la société), mais il est aussi suffisamment large pour évaluer les impacts d'autres entreprises à vocation sociale.

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 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)0.010
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.245
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of nonprofit and social economy researchSame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207