Exploration of the views of volunteers in outdoor recreation within a social economy framework / by Carrie McClelland.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Volunteers play a significant role in providing important services to a community. Not only do these services create opportunities for community members to participate in a variety of activities, but they also offer numerous benefits for the individual volunteer. The purpose of this study is to investigate the views of volunteers in outdoor recreation regarding their contributions to community and personal well-being. This topic is \ninvestigated within a social economy framework in order to effectively understand the place of volunteering in community processes. Using a qualitative approach, 13 exploratory interviews were conducted with outdoor recreation volunteers in Whitehorse during the spring and summer of 2007. The open interview format allowed study participants the freedom to discuss how they felt their volunteer work contributed to their personal well-being, as well as to the greater community. A modified snowball sampling technique was easily applied combining community referrals and systematic cold calling. Interview transcripts were coded to organise passages under common themes. The findings from this study are grouped under five areas of interest; Lifestyle and Sense of Identity, Personal Benefits, Community Benefits, Pressure, and The Influence of Money. \nIt was found that individuals receive benefits such as increase knowledge, social connections, and empowerment from volunteering in outdoor recreation and that the community receives these benefits through their work. These benefits relate to the social economy through their contributions to community development and exchanges in social \ncapital.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".