North Vancouver Memorial Community Centre; a study of a local community effort in organizing leisure-time activities.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study, taking the Memorial Community Centre and its two affiliated agencies, Heywood community Centre and North Shore Neighbourhood House, as the medium, examines the form which the development of the recreation movement has taken in North Vancouver, and evaluates the adequacy of the agencies to meet the leisure-time needs of the citizens of this area. These agencies are surveyed in terms of their leadership, programme, and facilities. The importance of the social, economic and cultural background is brought out. The district is poorly planned and the community is isolated from the amenities and commercial amusements of Vancouver City. The population is drawn largely from wage earner groups. North Vancouver was badly hit by the depression and only recently has managed to attain greater economic stability. Accordingly, the North Shore has been thrown on its own resources for recreation and organization. The majority of the citizens moved to North Vancouver to find a more pleasant environment for bringing up their children: they are keenly interested in the welfare of their families and all projects of creative recreation. There is an unusually wide degree of participation in these centres, not only financially but in the form of sponsorship, committees and actual membership. The study pays particular attention to this, to its achievements, and to the difficulties which still remain. As the scope of the centres widen, public relations, recruiting and training of competent volunteers, and programme organization generally, all become more important; the study attempts to assess community opinion on these matters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".