MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1483394298 · doi:10.1080/11745398.2010.9686836

Correlations Between Policy Discourse and Leisure Constraints among Ethnic Minorities: A case study of recent arrivals to Canada

2010· article· en· W1483394298 on OpenAlexaffabout
Golob Matias I.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Leisure Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationEthnic groupIdeologyImmigrationGovernment (linguistics)SociologyWindsorPublic policyGender studiesPolitical scienceDemographic economicsPoliticsLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the correlation between policy discourse and the leisure constraints of ethnic minority adults who are recent arrivals to Canada. The aim of this study was to provide further insight into the leisure constraints of immigrant populations by examining the inference of dominant ideology embedded in recreation policy. A case study methodology was adopted to explore how recreation policy has addressed the needs and interests of Spanishspeaking immigrant adults who are recent arrivals to Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Following a critical analysis of national and provincial government documents (published between 1983 and 2006), semi‐structured interviews were conducted with three municipal recreation administrators and six Spanish‐speaking immigrant adults. Findings suggest neo‐liberalism has become a major ideology in recreation policy discourse, inhibiting ethnic minority immigrants undergoing socio‐cultural and economic transitions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0180.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.278
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Leisure ResearchSame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207