Individual and Institutional Concentration of Leisure Research in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to identify key characteristics of the community of leisure scholars in North America and to use patterns derived from data about publication activity as a platform for discussing the nature and implications of concentration in leisure research at the individual and institutional levels. The study uses cluster analysis to detect patterns of research and publication activity among 1785 people who were associated with leisure research in North America in the 1990s, concentrating on the slightly smaller number of people (1631) whose names were listed as authors on at least one publication in all editions of 6 research journals and 14 conference proceedings from 1990 to 1999 inclusive. The results demonstrate that leisure research in North America is concentrated at both the individual scholar and institutional levels. For example, at the individual level, less than one-fifth of authors accounted for more than two-thirds of journal articles and conference papers. The implications of these findings are discussed with reference to issues such as the critical mass of scholars and problems of disciplinary isolation detected by previous researchers.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".