Motivations and Barriers to Recreation Participation in Canada: Recommendations for the Sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recreation provide Canadians with numerous direct and indirect benefits. Providing these opportunities and services (e.g. facilities and programs) represents a significant cost to local and regional governments and achieving the greatest return on investment occurs when as many residents are as active (benefitting) as possible. Better understanding what motivates and limits or prevents participation can help ensure facilities and programming are most effective. This project reviewed previous literature and analyzed survey data from 54 different jurisdictions across Canada to comprehensively explore motivators and barriers, contrasting differences based on service area (community or region) population. Notably, lack of time and facility hours appear to be key barriers along with affordability. Numerous social and inter-personal motivators drive participation and seem to differ based on the size of community in which individuals reside. The project culminated in six recommendations for the sector.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".