MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415586849 · doi:10.21083/crrf.v36i1.8102

Resilient Recreation in Rural Yukon

2025· article· W4415586849 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carolyn Sparks

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationPicnicLeisure studiesPublic healthRural areaCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through much of the last century, recreation was regarded as a “public good.” However, shifts towards cost-recovery and facility-based services have derailed the vital role that recreation can play in promoting individual health and community well-being. Public health restrictions put into place during the pandemic amplified the need for resilient recreation during times of social and economic hardship. Recent research in rural Yukon portrays resilient recreation as relying less on facilities and providing greater access to self-led recreation. Outdoor rinks, trails, sport courts, and picnic shelters are not as costly as indoor pools and arenas and provide spaces for recreation regardless of the time of day. Self-led activities provide opportunities to participate in recreation regardless of age, ability or means. The Recreation and Parks Association of the Yukon takes a purposeful approach to supporting rural communities to engage their citizens in active, healthy lifestyles. The focus is on recreation that is inclusive, accessible, and “lighter” or less of a burden on community resources. Recognize how this approach contributes to resilient recreation and ultimately contributes to Yukoners’ health and well-being.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Rural Revitalization FoundationSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207