MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2261621605 · doi:10.1080/01490400.2015.1038373

Use of Leisure Facilities and Wellbeing of Adult Caregivers

2015· article· en· W2261621605 on OpenAlexaffabout
Emily Schryer, Steven E. Mock, Margo Hilbrecht, Donna S. Lero, Bryan Smale

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntrapersonal communicationModerationPsychologyInterpersonal communicationGerontologyLeisure activitySocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current research examines leisure facility use as a moderator of the negative association of caregiving demands with wellbeing among informal caregivers. In accordance with the leisure constraints model, the study also explores the role of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural factors that may constrain or facilitate caregivers' use of leisure infrastructure. Data were collected as part of a survey conducted by the Canadian Index of Wellbeing in three communities. Results showed that greater use of leisure facilities buffered the association of greater hours of care with lower levels of mental and physical wellbeing for informal caregivers. Attitudes toward leisure, sense of community, and facility accessibility all positively predicted caregivers' use of leisure facilities. The results suggest that leisure infrastructure plays an important role in supporting wellbeing among caregivers and identify three types of constraints to consider when supporting caregivers' use of leisure facilities in their communities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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