MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005362851 · doi:10.1080/01490400500484065

Voices from the Margins: Stress, Active Living, and Leisure as a Contributor to Coping with Stress

2006· article· en· W2005362851 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yoshitaka Iwasaki, Kelly J. MacKay, Jennifer Mactavish, Janice Ristock, Judith Bartlett

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoping (psychology)ConceptualizationEmpowermentPsychologyQualitative researchFocus groupPhysical activityLesbianSocial psychologyGender studiesSociologyDevelopmental psychologyGerontologyClinical psychologyMedicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stress is one byproduct of hectic and busy lives. Therefore, examining active living and leisure in relation to stress and coping offers an important area of study. This paper presents key findings from a multi-year qualitative study of stress and coping. A series of focus groups were conducted with diverse residents of a western Canadian city including: (a) Aboriginal individuals with diabetes, (b) individuals with disabilities, and (c) people who identified as gay or lesbian. The findings emphasized that active leisure is more than physical activity, and that less physical forms of leisure should not be undervalued in the conceptualization of active living and leisure. Coping with stress using active leisure encompassed a wide range of meanings (e.g., spiritual, social, cultural, altruistic, empowerment).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0100.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations117
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeisure SciencesSame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207