Leisure Research by Canadians and Americans: One Community or Two Solitudes?
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
AbstractRecent empirical reviews of published research in North American leisure studies have argued that the field is intellectually and geographically isolated. The present article examines this contention by identifying similarities and differences in patterns of research dissemination between Canadian and American leisure researchers, with a view to investigating whether the two communities are distinct entities or part of an integrated and international community. The data were derived from a comprehensive record of refereed publication activity in leisure research journals and conference proceedings. From the standpoint of overall activities and productivity, Canadians and Americans were essentially the same, a conclusion substantiated in patterns of data related to general indicators of the level, timing, and longevity of research and publication activity. However, with respect to preferences for publishing articles in specific journals or presenting papers at specific conferences, Canadians and Americans diverged sharply: the majority tended to favor research dissemination in their own country's outlets. The results suggest that there are indeed “two solitudes” in North American leisure studies, at least among the majority of the community and in particular among Americans, less so among Canadians.KEYWORDS: Leisure researchleisure studies
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 | 0.026 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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