MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Serious Leisure and Work

2009· article· en· W2020086023 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociology Compass · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasualAmateurSociologyAppealWork (physics)Perspective (graphical)Sociology of leisureLeisure studiesAestheticsSocial psychologyTourismSocial sciencePsychologyVisual artsLawPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article looks at the complex relationship between serious leisure and work, with an eye to examining its implications for social life and practice. First, the serious leisure perspective (a theoretic framework that synthesizes three main forms: serious, casual, and project‐based leisure) is described. Then, occupational devotion is examined. It consists of a strong, positive attachment to a form of self‐enhancing work, where the sense of achievement is high and the core activity (set of basic tasks) is endowed with such intense appeal that the line between this work and leisure is virtually erased. Devotee work roots most immediately in amateur, hobbyist, and volunteer pursuits. Next some of the ways that people bridge devotee work and their leisure are considered. Careers are then discussed. These careers originate in serious leisure and, for some people, extend into work. After considering some others ways of bridging devotee work and serious leisure, two main implications of the link between these two are taken up.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.293 · 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