Project‐based leisure: theoretical neglect of a common use of free time
Bibliographic record
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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".