MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084494298 · doi:10.1080/01490400.2013.739871

Serious Leisure, Life Satisfaction, and Health of Older Adults

2012· article· en· W2084494298 on OpenAlexaff
Jinmoo Heo, Robert A. Stebbins, Junhyoung Kim, Inheok Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife satisfactionLeisure satisfactionPsychologyGerontologyLeisure activityMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored the relationships among serious leisure, life satisfaction, and health. The study sample consisted of 454 older adults from two annual events: the 2008 Indiana Senior Olympic Games and 2008 Colorado Senior Olympic Games. Cluster analysis was used to identify distinct groups based upon patterns of serious leisure involvement. In addition, relations among life satisfaction, health, and membership in serious leisure clusters were documented. This analysis resulted in three clusters, and they were named high/medium/low involvement groups. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was employed to determine cluster differences in life satisfaction, physical health, and mental health. MANOVA results revealed significant differences among the clusters on dependent variables. The findings document significant heterogeneity in the expression of serious leisure involvement among the Senior Games participants. The results also suggest that there are positive relationships between level of involvement in serious leisure and life satisfaction and health.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations174
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeisure SciencesSame topicAging and Gerontology ResearchFrench-language works237,207