Inclination to participate in organized serious leisure: An exploration of the role of costs, rewards, and lifestyle
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study centres on a little‐examined question: the inclination to participate in serious leisure activity, in particular, stressing the social side, as manifested in appeal of the grassroots association or voluntary organization in which the activity occurs. Forty‐one people were interviewed to explore the costs, rewards, and lifestyles underlying their decision to become and remain a participant in a grassroots association or voluntary organization and to participate in the serious leisure it makes possible. Interviewees were members of a hobbyist or self‐help group or volunteered for one of three voluntary organizations. The goal of this exploratory study was to generate grounded theory on the role of organizations in developing an inclination to leisure engagement. It revealed a reasonably broad range of organizationally based cost, reward, and lifestyle considerations that serious leisure participants experience and that, altogether, constitute a substantial push to embrace and stay with such leisure. Nonetheless, these inclinational forces were unevenly felt across all organizational forms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it