A Survey of Campus Recreation Directors at NIRSA Institutions: Activities Emphasized, Student Participation Patterns, Trends and Future Offerings Contemplated
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A survey, using an instrument constructed expressly for this investigation, was conducted of directors of campus recreation at all 682 NIRSA colleges and universities in the United States and Canada to determine the current status of: (a) the degree of emphasis institutions currently place on nine categories of sports and recreational activities, (b) the percentage of students, undergraduate and graduate, actually participating in each of these nine categories of activities, (c) future recreational activities and programs, not currently offered to students, but being considered for inclusion within the next 12 months, and (d) future trends in terms of problems (challenges and opportunities) facing college campus recreation departments. Two hundred and sixty-nine schools returned usable surveys for a 39% rate of return. This investigation provides a snapshot of specific current practices and programming offerings of campus Recreation Directors, as well as their opinions in terms of future programming plans and anticipated trends affecting their campus recreation departments. The data were analyzed in light of the locations of the responding institutions within the six regions of NIRSA, the size of the institutions and whether the schools were classified as public or private. The nine categories of recreational activities included: (a) intramurals, (b) club sports, (c) open recreation, (d) outdoor recreation, (e) group exercise/aerobics, (f) aquatics, (g) instructional programming, (h) special events, and (i) youth and family 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".