MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2751344100 · doi:10.1080/17439760.2017.1374444

Leisure and the positive psychological states

2017· article· en· W2751344100 on OpenAlexaff
Robert A. Stebbins

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Positive Psychology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyHappinessCasualContemplationSociology of leisurePerspective (graphical)Social psychologyEntertainmentPositive psychologyCreativityInterpersonal communicationLeisure studiesRecreationSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Positive psychology and the study of leisure of leisure have more in common than meets the eye. Their shared ground is especially evident in the concept of leisure activity: a type of pursuit, wherein participants in it mentally or physically (often both) think or do something, motivated by the hope of achieving a desired end. Leisure activities are positive activities, identified psychologically by particular sets of behaviors and sociologically by their place in a leisure social world and often in a social institution (e.g. sport, art, entertainment). Leisure is defined and the concept of leisure experience examined. Next, the serious leisure perspective is introduced. The main part of the article explores the emotions of leisure experience in interpersonal relationships, contemplation/spirituality, volunteering, quality of life/well-being, happiness, and play and creativity. The serious pursuits offer the richest range of positive psychological states, but casual and project-based leisure are not to be ignored.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.010
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations65
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Positive PsychologySame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207