Celebrating, challenging and re-envisioning serious leisure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we explore and expand theorizing about serious leisure examining its complexities and contradictions and its potential for the social sphere, applying particularly the critical lens of feminist communitarianism. Beginning with a critique of the reliance on activity-based definitions of serious leisure in empirical research and conceptualizations of serious leisure as embedded in a series of dualisms such as positive–negative, work–leisure and serious–casual, we suggest serious leisure be re-envisioned as a complex experience influencing and influenced by the sociopolitical context. We also explore the functional, normative nature of previous literature on serious leisure and the possibility of re-envisioning serious leisure as an expressive and creative experience that nurtures diversity. Advocating for increased attention to the sociopolitical context and the adoption of a critical lens, we suggest that serious leisure experiences may be gendered, commodified and stratified. We advocate for a more complex analysis of serious leisure linked to social and political spheres and celebrate its potential as an avenue for nurturing social ties and building identity. Finally, based on the preceding analysis, we offer a re-envisioned definition of serious leisure for consideration.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".