MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085860358 · doi:10.1080/01490400306563

Spiritual Functions of Leisure and Spiritual Well-Being: Coping with Time Pressure

2003· article· en· W2085860358 on OpenAlex
Paul Heintzman, Roger C. Mannell

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

VenueLeisure Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyLeisure timeCoping (psychology)Structural equation modelingSocial psychologyStyle (visual arts)Well-beingPhysical activityPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to develop a model of leisure style and spiritual well-being relationships, and the processes (spiritual functions of leisure) by which leisure can influence spiritual well-being. Also, the role of leisure in ameliorating the effects of time pressure on spiritual well-being was examined. Structural equation modeling using AMOS was employed to test direct and indirect effects models of the relationships among components of leisure style (leisure activity participation, leisure motivation, and leisure time), spiritual functions of leisure (sacrilization, repression avoidance, sense of place) and spiritual well-being (both behavioral and subjective). The model developed suggests that some components of people's leisure styles lead to certain behaviors and experiences (spiritual functions of leisure) that maintain or enhance spiritual well-being. These spiritual functions of leisure may also serve as coping strategies to ameliorate the negative influence of time pressure on spiritual well-being.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.289 · 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