The Relationship between Intramural Sport Participation, Social Integration, and Institutional Commitment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Higher education administrators are increasingly scrutinizing budgets and limited resources for the allocation of financial support to all academic and non-academic services, including campus recreational sports. With the current fiscal climate the benefits of campus recreation programs need to be examined and identified in order to remain relevant within post-secondary institutions. The purpose of this quantitative study is to examine the relationship between students’ participation in intramural sports, social integration into the campus community, and institutional commitment. Three hundred and twenty-four intramural participants (N=324) at a Canadian University completed a questionnaire before or after participating in their chosen intramural sport. MANOVA’s, Correlation Matrices, and Hierarchical Regression analyses were conducted, revealing that the quality of intramural participation, consisting of the effort, energy, time, and money a student invests, is a significant predictor of Social Integration into the campus community. Students who are personally invested in their intramural sport participation are more socially integrated into the campus community at their institution. Social integration was not found to be a significant predictor of Institutional Commitment as suggested by Tinto (1993). Future research should explore the relationship between social integration and institutional commitment as identified in Tinto’s (1993) Model of Departure, through the investigation of other contributing factors that lead to institutional commitment.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".