MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917438240 · doi:10.5539/hes.v9n1p151

Perceived Social Support in Recreational Activity Participation: A Study on Students

2019· article· en· W2917438240 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hüseyin Gümüş, Ayşe Aslı Honça, Turan Çetinkaya

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationPsychologyPreferenceScale (ratio)Analysis of varianceDiversity (politics)Descriptive statisticsSocial psychologyStatisticsGeographyMathematicsBiologySociologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to examine university students’ perceived social support level in recreational activity participation. 536 students who were selected from 3 different universities using convenience sampling participated in the study voluntarily. As data collection form; Perceived Social Support Scale (PSSS-R) and Preference Factors of Recreation Areas (PFRA) scale were used. For the analyses of the data; descriptive statistics, Independent Samples T Test used for two groups depending on the number of the variables and One Way ANOVA used for groups more than two were used. In order to find out which group demonstrated the difference found as a result of variance analyses, Tukey test -one of the multiple comparison tests- was used. In terms of recreational activity participation, the most effective factor in students’ average scores of perceived social support scale was peer support (2.690±0.372) while the least effective factor was teacher support (2.033±0.535). Total average score was found to be 2.441±0.274. The most effective factor in students’ average scores of Recreation Area Preference Agents Scale was sporting diversity (4.448±0.776) and staff (4.128±0.681) and these factors were followed by physical facilities (3.736±0.562), location (3.185±0.647) and activity diversity (3.074±0.586); respectively. Besides, there were significant differences in perceived social support levels of the study group in terms of gender and accommodation variables. It was concluded that the highest support for students’ recreational activity participation came from their peers while the lowest support was obtained from teachers. It may be argued that students staying at public dormitories used recreational areas built by municipalities more than other students. It was identified that criterion that all the student groups put the biggest emphasis on while preferring recreation areas was sporting diversity offered by the recreation areas.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.363 · 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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207