A partnership-based evaluation of a community-based youth sport and physical activity programme
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
The aim of this paper is to assess the partnership component of a community-based youth sport for development programme, Kids in Shape (KIS), through the application of the partnership management model proposed by Parent and Harvey (2009. "Toward A Management Model For Sport and Physical Activity Community-Based Partnerships," European Sport Management Quarterly 9: 23-45), in order to contribute to knowledge about the conditions needed for positive outcomes in such programmes. A longitudinal case study of KIS and its Local Action Committee (LAC) was built using LAC archival material and partner interviews. Overall, the KIS approach was deemed successful by the partners, with key conditions for positive outcomes including: time; funding availability; proper governance structures and processes; focusing on synergy, momentum, fairness and local ownership; creating policies and procedures; multiple types of communication; understanding of and engagement with the challenges and costs of association; emphasizing access to new resources; a neutral coordinator; and partner-developed evaluations that consider the processes, impacts and outcomes for participants, partners and the overall project.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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