MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Examining Changes in Sport Event Volunteers' Motivation, Satisfaction, Commitment, Sense of Community: Evidence from a Preevent–Postevent Design

2022· article· en· W4292692907 on OpenAlexaff
Erik L. Lachance, Ashley Thompson, Jordan T. Bakhsh, Milena M. Parent

Bibliographic record

VenueEvent Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySense of communitySocial psychologySample (material)Event (particle physics)Applied psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine changes in sport event volunteers' motivation, satisfaction, commitment, and sense of community from preevent to postevent. Data were collected using preevent and postevent online self-administered questionnaires sent to 256 volunteers at the 2019 Osprey Valley Open: a professional golf tournament. One hundred sixty-one volunteers (65% response rate) completed both questionnaires. Data were analyzed using paired sample t tests. All constructs demonstrated positive changes from preevent to postevent. Sense of community had the most significant positive change, followed by satisfaction, and then commitment. Motivation did not have a statistically significant change. Results show researchers should move beyond crosssectional research designs to better understand differences in these constructs across event modes. Practitioners should tailor their strategies toward volunteers' satisfaction, commitment, and sense of community to enhance their experiences at different time points throughout their involvement with a sport event.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvent ManagementSame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207