Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the shift towards understanding the lived leisure experiences of women, the experiences of men have generally been left under-studied, particularly from a gendered analysis perspective. As such, we know less about the leisure experiences of men, especially the lives of older men. In response to this gap, the purpose of this research was to explore the meaning of masculinity in old age and to understand ageing for men, focusing primarily on their leisure experiences. Using constructivist qualitative methodology, 14 older men were interviewed about their experiences of ageing and as older men. A significant site or context through which ageing was experienced was during leisure, with the primary vehicle for experiencing ageing being the body. These experiences included physical limitations to activity participation and social interactions in leisure settings that reinforced identities as ‘old men’, with the end result being a narrowing of leisure activities and opportunities. The body, ageing, and leisure experiences were phenomena that were inextricably entwined as the men described their experiences of ageing. The possibility that leisure may be a site where men's traditional masculine identities are contested and identities of ‘old men’ are ascribed suggests that the experiences of leisure may be more complex than leisure has traditionally been described in literature. The importance of expanding the dimensions of leisure and paying closer attention to the body in leisure studies is discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".