MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Understanding the Sport Event Volunteer Experience In the Implementation Mode of a Para-sport Event: An Autoethnography

2020· article· en· W3081680403 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvent Management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNonprofit Sector and Volunteering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyEvent (particle physics)DebriefingContext (archaeology)Social psychologyApplied psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on volunteerism is one of the largest areas of inquiry within sport event management. Yet, the volunteer experience, as a phenomenon related to four constructs (satisfaction, motivation, commitment, and sense of community), is poorly understood over the course of the event's life cycle due to the strong emphasis on quantitative methodologies and cross-sectional designs. Using an autoethnographic approach, the purpose of this study was to understand the volunteer experience in the implementation mode of the event life cycle. The context of the study was the 2017 Canadian Electric Wheelchair Hockey Association Nationals where the first author collected data through field notes and a personal journal, while the second author acted as an outsider and allowed for peer debriefing to occur. Following the completion of the event, data were thematically analyzed and two key themes were identified: (a) success in assigned role: satisfaction and the volunteer experience, and (b) sense of community: impetus for commitment, motivation, and the volunteer experience. Theoretical contributions of this article include (1) the transferability of the conceptual framework used in the study, which was originally developed and investigated in the planning mode of the event life cycle; and (2) the understanding of the volunteer experience during the implementation mode and how it is impacted by its four related constructs. Event managers are encouraged to develop specific strategies touching upon satisfaction, motivation, commitment, and sense of community to enhance their volunteers' experience.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.274 · 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