The home team advantage: investigating household sport affinity and volunteering in sport organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study examines how a household’s sport affinity influences the likelihood of volunteering in community sport organizations (CSOs), addressing the limited research on household-level determinants of sport volunteerism.Design/Methodology/Approach A cross-sectional survey design was employed, capturing a representative sample of 847 household respondents from across Canada.Findings The analysis indicates that greater household sport affinity and participation in team-based sports, as opposed to individual or less-structured activities, significantly predict household volunteerism in sport. Interestingly, conventional predictors such as household income were not found to be significant in this context.Practical Implications Practitioners should focus on targeted household recruitment through sport affinity evaluations rather than individual characteristics or coercive pressures. Using the organization’s registration platform to gather data on household sport engagement can enhance volunteer recruitment and retention efforts.Research Contribution This research more accurately reflects contemporary volunteerism in sport by examining its antecedents at the household level, rather than relying on the individual perspective that has dominated much of the existing literature across various contexts.Originality/Value By establishing a better understanding of the drivers for household volunteerism in sport, CSOs can better recruit, retain, and stabilize the voluntary workforce they rely on.
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 | 0.001 | 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".