MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3141641535 · doi:10.14288/1.0374162

Recreational Programming for Commuting Students

2018· article· en· W3141641535 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

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScheduling and Timetabling Solutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this research study ‘Recreational Programming for Commuting Students’ is to determine if time spent commuting to campus is a large influencer regarding student’s decisions to participate in recreational activities on UBC’s Vancouver campus, or if it is due to communication techniques used. The commuter students being addressed range from a total of zero minutes up to 3 hours each day. The length of these commutes is inclusive of both directions, to and from campus. This population of commuter students was chosen to see if there are large differences in a student’s perception of their ability to manage time, and if that becomes a determinant for students to participate in recreational activities. This research will examine the similarities or difference between these commuting students to see any other varying forms of constraints that students may face. Examples of relevant considerations include time management, social skills, skills to be successful in the activity, money constraints, and sense of inclusion/belonging (MacRae, 2011). Studies show that the average time to commute one way has gone up to about 26 minutes, with many people commuting for much longer, and therefore taking away time where individuals could be active (The Astonishing…, 2016). This research study will send out surveys through email to participants in an attempt to overcome time constraints that had been commented on by participants. These surveys will inquire about students issues within current communication methods among campus, and result in a discussion to determine a possible plan of action to improve these strategies. In researching the issues surrounding communication techniques of recreational programming, a subsequent goal of this study would be to increase recreational participation among commuter students. 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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.252 · 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