Summer Camp Counselor Experiences: The Influence of Training, Self-Efficacy, and Organizational Cohesion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many overnight camps use Counselor-in-Training (CIT) programs to prepare adolescent campers for the counselor role. Although research has investigated the effectiveness of individual CIT programs, studies have not compared the experiences of previous CIT participants (CITs) to the experiences of new, non-CIT counselors across camp types. We recruited 314 camp counselors (130 previous CITS and 185 non-CITs) from camps across the United States and Canada for an online survey with items assessing their self-efficacy, organizational cohesion, and experiences as first-year counselors. Although we did not find a significant effect of the completion of a CIT program on any of the primary variables, individual and camp factors such as job fit, satisfaction with training, and comfort talking to administrators were significantly associated with self-efficacy and organizational cohesion. More between-camps and longitudinal research is needed to more deeply understand the impacts of training, overall climate, and the efficacy of CIT programs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".