Motivation of University Students Volunteer to Participate in Sportive Activities of Mentally Handicapped Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The general aim of the study is to determine the motivation of volunteers to participate in the sportive activities of mentally handicapped individuals (Study 1) and to reveal the details that can ensure the continuity of these volunteering activities (Study 2). In Study I, a survey model including the qualitative paradigm was used. Study I was carried out with 138 volunteers who participated in the Special Olympics Turkey event for mentally handicapped individuals in Gazi University. In the study I, an open-ended data collection tool with one question was used to determine the reasons for volunteers to participate in the sportive activities of mentally handicapped individuals. In the study I was used thematic analysis. In study I, It was determined that 121 (Female: 76, Male: 45) volunteers were in the internal motivation sub-dimension, 15 (Female: 4, Male: 11) volunteers were in the external motivation sub-dimension and 2 participants were in the non-motivation sub-dimension. In Study II, it was aimed to examine the expressions of volunteers involved in external motivation and non-motivation dimensions for these dimensions in depth. In Study II, a qualitative research approach was used. Study II was carried out with 17 volunteers involved in the dimensions of External Motivation (n: 15) and Non-motivation among volunteers. In Study II, semi-structured interview form was used as data collection tool. Study II shows the categories and frequencies achieved during interviews with individuals, whose voluntary participation motivations are external motivation and non-motivation. In interviews with volunteers in the external motivation sub-dimension, the following categories were obtained: “Occupational anxiety”, “Increasing the Sincerity with Teachers”, “Gaining Social Status/Becoming Popular” and “Rewarding Voluntary Participation”.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".