MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031679395 · doi:10.1080/04419057.2009.9674589

New Leisure and Leisure Customization

2009· article· en· W2031679395 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

VenueWorld Leisure Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Games and Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasualPersonalizationTasteLeisure studiesLeisure activitySociology of leisureProduct (mathematics)Sociocultural evolutionGlobalizationMarketingUnit (ring theory)Leisure timeBusinessSociologyPsychologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceTourismSocial scienceEconomicsPhysical activityMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract New leisure is any activity of recent invention undertaken in free time, in the sense that a number of people in a region, nation, or larger sociocultural unit have only lately taken it up as a pastime. The goal here is to examine the nature and import of new leisure activities. It is evident that they are a diverse lot found in serious, casual, and project-based forms. New leisure is symptomatic of social change as well as a vehicle for human inventiveness. It may also challenge established leisure. Furthermore new leisure activities appear to be created at a much greater rate today than earlier, in significant part because of conditions and processes leading to globalization. Much, possibly all, of new leisure may be seen as a product of what Godbey calls “leisure customization,” a process he says is a contemporary trend where leisure is shaped to the taste of particular categories of participants. The commercial side of new leisure is considered, as is its utility for leisure education.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.268 · 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