MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087980729 · doi:10.1080/14927713.2009.9651445

The spiritual benefits of leisure

2009· article· en· W2087980729 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure/Loisir · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationRecreationLeisure studiesCoping (psychology)PsychologyEmpirical researchSpiritual developmentSociologySpiritualityEngineering ethicsSocial psychologyPsychotherapistPolitical scienceMedicineEpistemologyAlternative medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A comprehensive examination of the spiritual benefits of leisure is long overdue as this topic has not been thoroughly addressed since McDonald and Schreyer's (1991) significant chapter titled “Spiritual benefits of leisure participation and leisure settings.” This paper provides an integrated, critical synthesis of empirical studies related to the spiritual benefits of leisure that have been published in the last 18 years. After discussing the conceptualization of spiritual benefits, the paper reviews empirical research on the leisure benefits of spiritual experience, spiritual well being, and spiritual coping with stress, as well as research on the leisure factors that produce spiritual benefits. Progress has been made in each of these areas but further research is needed in at least 10 specific areas. Implications for recreation practitioners are explained.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.274 · 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