Project‐based leisure: theoretical neglect of a common use of free time
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 Project‐based leisure is a short‐term, moderately complicated, one‐shotFootnote1 or occasional though infrequent, creative undertaking carried out in free time. It requires considerable planning, effort and sometimes skill or knowledge, but is for all that neither serious leisure nor intended to develop into such. Nothing has been written about project‐based leisure per se, even though it appears to be widely pursued wherever people have sufficient free time and resources for it. The object here is to present a conceptual framework detailed enough to focus inquiry, but at the same time open‐ended enough to permit and encourage effective and extensive exploration of this (theoretically) new form. Among those likely to engage in project‐based leisure are people with heavy workloads; homemakers, mothers and fathers with extensive domestic responsibilities; and unemployed individuals who, though looking for work, still have time at the moment for (mostly one‐shot) projects. In the Conclusion, project‐based leisure is discussed as a form of leisure experience. Notes Keynote address presented at the University of Waterloo Graduate Student Leisure Research Symposium, University of Waterloo, May 2003. The term 'one‐shot' is commonly used in North America with reference to single events or projects, and is interchangeable with the English/Canadian expression 'one‐off'. Additional informationNotes on contributorsROBERT A. STEBBINS Footnote Keynote address presented at the University of Waterloo Graduate Student Leisure Research Symposium, University of Waterloo, May 2003.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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