Exploring the Link between Interorganizational Relationships and Organizational Capacity in a Youth Baseball Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In sport management literature two concepts have emerged as key areas of interest for youth sport organizations struggling to operate: interorganizational relationships and organizational capacity.Capacity is understood as the organization's ability to serve the needs and interests of their members while interorganizational relationships (IORs) are cooperative relationships that seek to share resources for enhanced performance.Interorganizational relationship development has been identified as an effective strategy for strengthening the capacity of youth sport organizations.Cross-sector relationships hold promise for shaping the youth sport landscape in a positive way.Organizational capacity and IORs are related, yet questions remain surrounding how IORs are being used to enhance organizational capacity in cross-sector youth sport networks.The purpose of this research study was to examine the link between interorganizational relationships and organizational capacity in a baseball network in a Region of Ontario, Canada.Population data were collected from representatives of youth baseball organizations through a survey instrument using a telephone interview format and analyzed using social network analysis.The results highlighted that not all IORs are developed for the purpose of resource sharing as both human and financial resources were shared relatively sparingly in the network.The findings also found that IORs and sector ties were statistically significant in their ability to predict organizational capacity ties.Overall, the results of this study allowed for conclusions to be drawn related to network structure, organizational capacity, and the relationship between IORs and organizational capacity in a youth baseball network.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".