Leisure Research by Canadians and Americans: One Community or Two Solitudes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent 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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".