MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predicting Intention to Volunteer for Mega-Sport Events in China: The Case of Universiade Event Volunteers

2017· article· en· W2773272607 on OpenAlexaff
Kai Jiang, Luke R. Potwarka, Honggen Xiao

Bibliographic record

VenueEvent Management · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural equation modelingAttractivenessVolunteerContext (archaeology)PsychologyAltruism (biology)Event (particle physics)Social psychologyMega-Applied psychologyChinaQuestionnaireSociologyPolitical scienceStatisticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attracting and retaining a loyal base of volunteers is critical to the success of mega-sport events (MSEs). The purpose of this study was to examine the antecedents of MSE volunteering in a Chinese context. Drawing upon self-determination theory, the study establishes a valid structural equation model of antecedents of Chinese volunteers' satisfaction and their intention to volunteer in future MSEs. The XXVI Summer Universiade provides a case-specific context. After a pilot study to validate questionnaire items, location-based convenience sampling was employed to collect data from Universiade volunteers. A total of 1,015 questionnaires were completed and analyzed. Results from the covariance-based structural equation modeling analysis showed that all of the three exogenous factors—external attractiveness, altruism, and intrinsic motivation—emerged as significant predictors of volunteer satisfaction. In turn, volunteers' perceived level of satisfaction predicted future MSE volunteer intention. Our findings reveal unique differences between Chinese sport event volunteers and their Western counterparts. Implications for event planning and volunteer program design are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvent ManagementSame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207