Understanding Intergenerational Activity in Rural Ontario: The Case of The Grand Sparks Summer Day Camp
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many researchers and health practitioners are concerned with encouraging more activity for rural residents, especially older adults and small children. The paper reports on a case study investigating the Grand Sparks Day Camp as it presents a compelling example of intergenerational activity. Grand Sparks is a one-week day camp that challenges grandparents to interactive outdoor play and recreation with their grandchildren (ages 5 and up). Located in Walton, Ontario, Grand Sparks aims to: 1) motivate older- adults to become more active and find a recreational activity that becomes a shared, routine, interactive pastime with youth, and 2) educate and encourage children to make healthy nutritional choices by getting them involved in meal preparation. (Grandsparks.com). In 2018, a photo-voice project was conducted at the camp to understand the experiences of kids and grandparents who participate in the camp. Disposable cameras were given to groups of kids and their grandparents and they were asked to use the camera to take pictures that conveyed both how they experienced the camp and how the camp experience impacted their health and wellbeing. By the end of the week (July 9-13), participants had taken an average of 26 photos each for a total of more than 270 pictures. The pictures were developed and returned to campers during a 1.5 hour focus group held in September, 2018. During the focus group, participants each selected two photos that captured their camp experience and the group had a broad discussion about the camp and its role in their health and wellbeing. In March, 2019, researchers met to conduct a content analysis of the photos and identified key themes. The paper explores three case study themes (nature, unstructured movements in big spaces, and managing risk/grandparent control) and considers the implications of this novel, intergenerational camp for supporting rural wellbeing more generally.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".