MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117946121 · doi:10.1080/01490400802558277

The Effects of Ethnicity and Leisure Satisfaction on Happiness, Peacefulness, and Quality of Life

2008· article· en· W2117946121 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Spiers, Gordon J. Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHappinessEthnic groupLife satisfactionSocial connectednessPsychologyQuality of life (healthcare)Leisure satisfactionSpiritualityMultilevel modelLeisure activitySocial psychologySociologyMedicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine how ethnicity and leisure satisfaction affected people's happiness, peacefulness, and quality of life. A trilingual telephone survey of Chinese/Canadians (N = 261) and British/Canadians (N = 258) was conducted. Hierarchical multiple regressions indicated that sex had no significant effect on any regressors. Ethnicity significantly affected standard of living, achieving in life, and life as a whole. Overall leisure satisfaction significantly affected happiness, peacefulness, and all nine quality of life domains. Canonical correlations also showed that happiness and achieving in life were positively correlated for British/Canadians and happiness and personal relationships were positively correlated for some Chinese/Canadians. Peacefulness was positively correlated with spirituality/religion and community connectedness, but negatively correlated with personal relationships, for some Chinese/Canadians. Implications and research recommendations are provided.

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)0.003
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 score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations166
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeisure SciencesSame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207