MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115879235

Increasing Participation in After-School Sport and Physical Activity among Children and Youth: A Case Study of Providers in Ontario, Canada

2013· article· en· W2115879235 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ken R. Lodewyk

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue phénEPS / PHEnex Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntrapersonal communicationFocus groupInterpersonal communicationRecreationPsychologyPublic relationsMedical educationPolitical scienceSocial psychologyBusinessMarketingMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many children and youth that do not participate in after-school sport and physical activity (ASSPA) programs are opting instead for relatively sedentary activities. This investigation sought how to enhance the experiences and participation rates in ASSPA among children and youth through a mixed-method (survey and personal and focus group interviews) case study of over 300 ASSPA providers (individual practitioners and administrators). The results highlighted the joint role of demographic-intrapersonal, interpersonal, and environmental factors. Prominent demographic-intrapersonal barriers included participants’ prior experiences, motivation, money, understanding of participation benefits, and an urban or rural setting. The dominant interpersonal recommendation was better engagement of participants in family-oriented and socially-engaging programs. Noteworthy environmental themes were adequate resources, affordable programming, provincial policies, organizational coordination (particularly between schools and community agencies), and ensuring quality, quantity, and inclusivity in ASSPA programming and delivery. Providers prioritized inclusive ASSPA programming for physically active lifestyles, life skills, and movement skills rather than the development of elite athletes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue phénEPS / PHEnex JournalSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207