MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2341443412 · doi:10.14288/1.0106695

The programme volunteer in leisure-time agencies : a study of the experiences and attitudes of a sample volunteers in fourteen building-centred agencies in Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, B.C.

2012· article· en· W2341443412 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Orr Pollock

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSample (material)VolunteerMedical educationPublic relationsPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leisure-time agencies were planned and operated by-volunteers long before the profession of group work came into existence. They were the motivating force behind the establishment of many of the present day social services now enjoyed by citizens of the nation. Because of the entry of professional workers into the field of leisure-time activity, the importance of a clarification of function between volunteer and professional is apparent. All agencies realize the importance of the volunteer and are anxious to know the best manner by which to recruit, place, train, and recognize him. To obtain information regarding the extent of volunteer participation in leisure-time programmes, and to ascertain their current value in agencies, interviews were arranged with fourteen agency administrators. This information was used throughout the thesis as background material. The factual data, upon which the conclusions of the study are based, was obtained through the analysis of the answers to one hundred and twenty-two questionnaires returned by volunteers active in the fourteen agency programmes. To evaluate volunteer service the thesis is divided into sections, each of which represents an integral part of volunteer participation. Recruitment, selection, and placement are important areas in evaluating volunteer service; motivation and recognition are of vital importance in understanding the performance of the volunteer; in addition, training and supervision must be evaluated. From the general information, the current literature on the subject, and personal observation different kinds of volunteers have been defined and the essential responsibilities of agency and volunteer outlined. Some of the most important findings of the study are those that indicate who serves as volunteers. Information obtained regarding many factors which influence lay participation indicated one factor which has been denied or neglected by some agencies --- the consistent affirmation on the part of volunteers that they want an initial interview, training and supervision on the job, and recognition of their efforts by the agency. The thesis, in as far as it indicates who are programme volunteers, and how they function to meet group, agency, and community needs might prove a profitable basis for study and evaluation of volunteer services in any single agency.

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)0.002
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicHomelessness and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→