MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988844120 · doi:10.1080/11745398.2010.9686867

An exploratory study examining the relationships between the leisure‐related variables and subjective well‐being of community residents

2010· article· en· W1988844120 on OpenAlexaff
Byung‐Gook Kim, Youngkhill Lee, Sanghee Chun

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Leisure Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySubjective well-beingSocial psychologyLeisure satisfactionBeijingVariablesExploratory researchHappinessSociologyGeographyStatisticsSocial scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The purpose of this study was to explore the relationships between leisure‐related variables and individuals’ subjective well‐being (SWB). This study employed the systematic random sampling strategy using 2005 Bloomington Telephone Directory. A total of 172 out of 535 households were selected in a self‐administered drop‐off/mail‐back questionnaire survey. Seventy‐seven female (49%) and 80 male (51%) residents in a small Midwestern town in the United States responded to the questionnaire. The overall response rate for the survey was approximately 30 per cent. Model fit statistics demonstrated that the relationship between leisure variables and SWB in the proposed model fit the data well. Supporting relationships is an important contribution to the leisure literature in the sense that leisure variables might have various direct and indirect effects on individuals’ SWB through leisure satisfaction. The finding of this study suggested that people who perceive leisure more positively may be more satisfied in their lives. Future research should study linkages between leisure variables and SWB from qualitative and longitudinal approaches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.320
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.146 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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