Benefits of Collegiate Recreational Sports Participation: Results from the 2013 NASPA Assessment and Knowledge Consortium Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reports the results from the 2013 National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) Assessment and Knowledge Consortium. Students ( N = 33,522) from 38 different colleges and universities across the United States completed the Recreation and Wellness Benchmark instrument. Using Astin's Theory of Student Involvement (1984), this study sought to determine if there were significant differences between different depth and breadth levels of participants' campus recreational sports involvement/participation on student retention, health and wellness, and student learning outcomes. Heavy Users placed significantly more importance on campus recreational sports facilities and programs when deciding to continue at their college/university, and felt they had increased or improved every health and wellness and student learning outcome from their participation in campus recreation significantly more when compared with Moderate, Light, and Non-Users. Findings from this nationwide study demonstrate the value of collegiate recreation to the college and university experience.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it