Perception of Recreational Opportunities on a Campus to Increase Wellness
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Universities strive to enhance the student experience and promote student success. A major contributor to student success is the development of wellness, defined as the state of being in good health, especially as an actively pursued goal. Positive subjective wellness is achieved when individuals actively engage leisure activities to increase wellness. In conjunction with the Lethbridge Campus Ecology Project, the purpose of the study was to investigate undergraduate students’ use of campus green space to increase wellness and manage perceived stress. To enhance wellness in practice, it is essential to determine not only what the students want, but also what types of outdoor leisure additions they would use. A survey was generated to explore students’ perception of leisure opportunities on campus and investigate what type of outdoor recreation students would use to enhance their wellness. Information gathered from responses will provide insight on what implementations would be utilized to increase greater wellness and reduce stress in students. It is hypothesized that outdoor leisure opportunities will be associated with an increase in subjective student wellness. Additionally, it is expected that females and males will differ significantly in their choices for wellness enhancement strategies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it