"I'll be back:" Norms for prosocial behaviour and intention to return in sport camp groups
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 are many reasons why an individual might choose to return to a sporting situation, including aspects of the group environment. One group factor that may impact one’s decision to return is the individual’s perceptions of what others in the group are doing. One possible set of behaviours that might entice others to want to return to a group is prosocial behaviours, as it is not a stretch to envision that when group members are perceived as being supportive and helpful, one is likely want to return to the group. This study examined whether the norm for prosocial behaviour within a sport group would be related to intention to return to the same group, in youth participating in a one-week summer volleyball camp. Participants (N = 145), who were divided into 13 smaller independent groups for the duration of the camp, completed a questionnaire assessing individual perceptions of how many members within their small group displayed prosocial behaviours during the camp (4 items, modified from Kavussanu & Boardley, 2009), as well as two items assessing intention to return to that group for a future camp. As individual responses were nested within groups (ICC = .07), hierarchical linear modelling was used. Results indicated that the norm for prosocial behaviour was positively related to intention to return (β = .23, p = .01), explaining 5% of the variance, with variance occurring at both the individual (3.3%) and group (25.3%) level. The more individuals in the group were perceived to be providing positive feedback and encouraging others (i.e., prosocial behaviours), the more likely individual members reported wanting to return to the same group. Results of this study provide preliminary evidence that norms for one behaviour (prosocial) are associated with another individual behaviour (intention to return to that at group in the future).
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 | 0.001 | 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 it