MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Alternative Lifestyles and Well-Being

2008· article· fr· W2026254191 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Carolin Lusby, Stephen Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueLoisir et Société / Society and Leisure · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCruise Tourism Development and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeci-Symbolic interactionismGrounded theoryMaturity (psychological)Perspective (graphical)SociologySocial psychologyPsychologyAestheticsSocial scienceQualitative researchVisual artsArtDevelopmental psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the alternative lifestyle of ocean cruising to learn about human satisfaction and well-being. Cruisers have made a conscious decision to quit their land-based life in an effort to lead a more self-determined and ultimately more satisfying lifestyle. Cruisers own their boats, live aboard and are constantly on the move to somewhere. An interpretive research paradigm using symbolic interactionism as a theoretical perspective was used to guide this study. Through in-depth semi-structured interviews with 25 cruisers at marinas in Florida and Georgetown (Bahamas), several themes and sub-themes emerged from the data : health (healthier lifestyle, psychological well-being), time together, maturity. The constant comparative method of grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ; Charmaz, 2006) revealed that cruising is a self- determined and intrinsically rewarding lifestyle that adds substantially to the physical as well as psychological well-being of cruisers. Self determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and the broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2001) were applied to the findings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLoisir et Société / Society and LeisureSame topicCruise Tourism Development and ManagementFrench-language works237,207