MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170836599 · doi:10.1123/ssj.24.4.378

Does Sport Foster Social Capital? The Contribution of Sport to a Lifestyle of Community Participation

2007· article· en· W2170836599 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Perks

Bibliographic record

VenueSociology of Sport Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Capital and Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial capitalSample (material)PsychologyCommunity participationSociology of sportSocial engagementYouth participationPublic relationsSociologyPolitical scienceGender studiesSocioeconomicsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little research has been done to date on the contribution of sport to a lifestyle of community participation. This is despite theoretical support from the social capital literature for the suggestion that the relationships and trust fostered through sport participation should lead to involvement in community activities outside of sport. The present study addresses this gap in the research by testing whether participation in organized youth sport positively predicts involvement in particular community activities as an adult. Based on an analysis of survey data collected from a representative sample of Canadians, the findings show that youth sport participation was positively related to adult involvement in community activities, although the predictive effects of youth sport participation were small. The findings also show that the effects of youth sport participation on adult participation in community activities lasted throughout the lifecycle. Both findings are consistent with the social capital literature.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations125
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociology of Sport JournalSame topicSocial Capital and NetworksFrench-language works237,207