MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407192280 · doi:10.1080/17430437.2025.2460490

‘This experience has changed me and my view:’ the learning experiences of urban youth in outdoor-focused sport-for-development programming

2025· article· en· W4407192280 on OpenAlexaffabout
Greg Yerashotis, B. Gwilliam, Simon C. Darnell

Bibliographic record

VenueSport in Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicOutdoor and Experiential Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoAlgonquin CollegeTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyPositive Youth DevelopmentYouth sportsPsychologyAdvertisingPublic relationsAthletesPolitical scienceBusinessDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the learning experiences of urbanized immigrant youth who took part in an outdoor education component of a Sport-for-Development (SfD) program. Operated through an intersectoral partnership between the City of Toronto and the University of Toronto from 2017-2019, youth spent multiple weekends at the Hart House Farm, a University of Toronto-owned education facility located on the Niagara Escarpment. Drawing from participant-observation and focus group interviews, we analyze if, how, and why participation affected youth at personal, social, and political levels. The findings demonstrate how providing urban youth with access to the outdoors facilitated unique forms of learning based upon their newfound appreciation of the natural world. Not only did the trip teach them how to use outdoor leisure in support of their emotional wellbeing and personal growth, but it also fostered a more critical awareness of environmental justice and sustainability. Based upon these results, the authors call for further examination of how ‘outdoor-focused SfD programming’ can be marshalled to support more transformative forms of social learning and development in young people.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSport in SocietySame topicOutdoor and Experiential EducationFrench-language works237,207