MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995779637 · doi:10.14288/1.0387079

Enhancing Communication and Awareness of UBC Recreational Programming in Commuter and Resident Students

2019· article· en· W2995779637 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Teddy Y. Wu, Hilary Rackham, Daniel Lam, Delaney Stone-Kerr, Johnson Chun-Sing Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationComputer scienceMedical educationPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this report ‘Recreation Gaps Pilot Program Evaluation,’ self-identified female students attending the University of British Columbia (UBC) who did not participate in “Move More, Learn More”, a physical activity promotion initiative, were analyzed in order to better understand their knowledge of the program, interest in participating, and suggested methods for communicating the program. Specifically, students in this demographic who commute to UBC campus were compared to those who reside there. The initiative was the outcome of a 2018 Equity Enhancement Fund by the UBC Equity & Inclusion Office that was granted to the UBC Department of Athletics and Recreation to establish an initiative to promote physical on the UBC campus in Vancouver. Due to the notion that female Chinese students represent the largest subset of students enrolled at UBC and also report the lowest levels of physical activity, the pilot program was focused on this demographic. However, all female students were able to attend. Launched by the Physical Activity Office in February 2019, the program took place two times a week for under an hour for six weeks in a group of 5-25 participants. To assess commuter and resident non-participants of the program, a group of students in KIN 464: Health Promotion and Physical Activity worked together with community partners from Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) to carryout objectives of the study. A literature review was conducted to examine physical activity trends in post-secondary commuter and resident students and the barriers to engaging in exercise that they face. To collect data, surveys were conducted through online recruitment using social media sites such as Facebook and alternative online social platforms such as Canvas. Survey questions inquired about commuter or residential status, history of engagement in previous UBC programs, and efficient communication methods of UBC events. Results revealed that both commuter and resident students were deterred from UBC programming due to time constraints, specifically academic obligations. Both groups reported that they would prefer an evening program that occurred frequently throughout the week so as to accommodate a wide range of schedules. Furthermore, Facebook was the primary recommended platform for advertisement, including a focus on sharing such events in a selection of academic and non-academic UBC-affiliated groups and clubs such as the UBC Asian Calligraphy club. Based on the quantitative and qualitative data collected, recommendations were made to SEEDS to increase awareness and participation in UBC physical activity programming, and to effectively communicate future programs to accomplish this. First, communication of the program can be enhanced by expanding social media posts to include tailored information for commuter students, posting in a wide range of UBC-affiliated groups, and creating social media groups for commuters specifically. Increasing awareness and participation may be accomplished by increasing the frequency in which a program is offered, using tailored prizes as incentives, and promoting team events where commuters and residents can compete against each other. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicEducational Games and GamificationFrench-language works237,207