Delivering Positive Youth Development at a Residential Summer Sport Camp
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
There is currently a lack of theoretically based research regarding positive youth development (PYD) and youth in recreational sport settings, including residential summer sport camps. This qualitative research study explored the ways in which positive developmental experiences are facilitated at a residential summer sport camp. Using a case study approach over an entire summer, interviews were conducted with summer camp leaders and camp management, focus groups were completed with campers and counselors in training, and observations were recorded as field notes. Data were first inductively and then deductively analyzed and results are situated within the 8 Settings Features of PYD programming. This camp context was deliberately structured to facilitate leaders’ provision of growth opportunities for campers. Leaders provided opportunities for growth through the development of supportive relationships with a variety of leaders, the presence of positive social norms, and opportunities for skill building. Findings from this study may have implications for sport administrators as well as day and residential summer camp directors regarding creating programs and environments rich with developmental opportunities for youth.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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