Bringing the Community to the Uni—Critical Reflections on Youth Recreation Partnerships in Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The focus of this paper is an evaluation of a recreation project partnership between a co-curricular university department and various youth community programs in downtown Toronto, Canada. The goal of the Hart House Youth Community Recreation Project (YCRP) is to build a bridge between the university and its neighboring communities through recreation, arts, and dialogue-based programming that responds to the needs and interests of community partners and their youth members. Informed by the understanding that university/community partnerships are often paradoxical, the study assessed understandings of the program from the perspectives of the stakeholders involved. To do so, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the following two groups: organizers and leaders from the youth community programs, and staff members coordinating the project from the co-curricular university department. The results indicate that meaningful opportunities can be created within such partnerships through the provision of access to unique resources and recreation spaces; inclusion of partners in planning and program delivery; and through forging meaningful relationships between university staff and the program participants. However, significant challenges to creating and sustaining such opportunities also exist, including structural and social inequities that result in participants feeling othered in program settings; the instability and "delicacy" of trust within partnerships; and funding structure and resources. The findings shed light on, and make recommendations about, the potential benefits that youth organizations might gain from participating in university-community recreation partnerships, as well as the paradoxical nature of delivering and maintaining these partnerships.
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.058 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".