Re-Framing Questions: Assessing the Significance of Leisure
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Leisure research has received scant attention from researchers in other disciplines and has had relatively little impact on social policy to date. It is argued in this paper that re-framing the questions posed by leisure scholars could help to increase the visibility of the field, as well as increase awareness of the relevancy and significance of leisure for individuals, communities and societies. The re-framing process suggested would involve examination of the complex inter-connections between leisure and the major social, economic, political and cultural systems that dominate our lives, as well as the implications of leisure for human rights and justice. Further, the concept of re-framing suggests the need to adopt an outward looking perspective, the need for better theoretical understanding of negative as well as positive leisure practices, and the need to address societal and global issues. The potential exists not only for a broader and more contextualized understanding of leisure, but also for leisure and leisure research to play an enhanced role in social policy development, advocacy and activism.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it