Recreation in Remote communities: A Case Study of a Nova Scotia Village
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With diverse living conditions and distinctive natural environments, remote rural communities typically foster a unique way of life, which are often displayed through leisure activities. As rural communities feel the effects of globalization and population decline, the leisure styles of community residents change. This paper examines recreation in the lifestyles of rural residents living in remote communities. The purpose of this study is to highlight the unique lifestyles of rural residents in the fishing village of Newport, Nova Scotia, Canada. Specifically, this study explores the leisure styles of community members in one remote community over a 30-year period during which time the economy has changed from being dependent on resource extraction to resource appreciation. Data were gathered using multiple techniques, including content analysis, focus groups, and key stakeholder interviews. The findings indicate that community members are not engaged with one another, as each cohort in the community indicates varying leisure pursuits. There is a strong level of individualized recreational activities for the youth and young adult males, leading to segregation from the community. The senior cohort group provides recreation for itself, while adult men and women appear to have limited to no time for recreation, due to work, family, and household obligations. The residents of Newport report placing high value on community recreational activity, yet no segment of the population is willing to provide the leadership to facilitate recreational opportunities. We conclude that individualized pursuits, coupled with the limited recreational opportunities in the community, have limited the sense of community cohesiveness in Newport. Further research is needed to find out whether this is the case with other rural communities in Canada. Keywords: rural communities, leisure styles, sense of community, cohesion
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".