The Leisure Style of Canadian Rural Recreation Participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the leisure styles of rural recreationists in Canada. The study involved a secondary analysis of data from a previous study, with a sample of 248 Canadians, which gathered data on four dimensions of leisure style: time use, leisure setting, leisure activity participation, and leisure motivation (Heintzman & Mannell, 2003). Correlation analyses were conducted on the data to determine if frequency of participation in three rural leisure settings was related to other dimensions of leisure style. The analysis revealed the following: Nonurban Natural Area Visitors were characterized by participation in outdoor, cultural, social, and travel and tourism activities, motivated by stimulus-avoidance motivations, and had a preference for other natural leisure settings in addition to nonurban natural areas; Pastoral/Rural Visitors were characterized by participation in outdoor, cultural, social, hobby, and personal development activities, motivated by intellectual and competence-mastery motivations, and had a preference for nonurban natural areas, cottage or lodge settings, urban and near-urban natural areas, and quiet urban recreation areas in addition to pastoral/rural areas; Cottage and Lodge Setting Visitors were characterized by participation in outdoor, cultural, social, sports, and travel and tourism activities, motivated by competence-mastery and social motivations, and had a preference for pastoral/rural areas in addition to cottage and lodge settings. Keywords: rural recreation, leisure style, natural areas, pastoral areas, cottages
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".