Sports Day in Canada: examining the benefits for event organizers (2010–2013)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of large-scale, ‘mass’ community-based sport, and physical activity (PA) events on population PA has yet to be established. The enhancement of organizational capacity to support health promotion initiatives is one mechanism through which such events may be helpful. Sports Day in Canada (SDIC) is an annual, nation-wide event celebrating the role of sport within communities and promoting sport participation. Beginning in 2010, thousands of Canadian sport and PA organizations have created SDIC events each year. The objective of this study was to examine the types of organizations who participate in SDIC and to determine if and how these organizations benefit from hosting an event. Online surveys of event organizers (2010 to 2013 SDIC) were conducted. Descriptive analyses identified organization and event characteristics, and one-way ANOVAs across time assessed event organizers’ perceptions related to their overall satisfaction, benefits obtained, and challenges faced while participating in SDIC. Findings showed that organizations were mainly from the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec, worked with children and youth, and registered an event that was a tournament or school based. There was a significant increase in overall satisfaction [F(3, 996) = 27.26, p < .001] and benefits obtained [F(3, 1000) = 18.36, p < .001] across all four years of SDIC. One main benefit reported by organizations was an increased awareness and interest among community members in sport program(s) offered by their organization. Mass events like SDIC may help enhance organizational capacity to deliver health promotion initiatives including sport and PA programming.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".