Canada-based peer-reviewed leisure studies research: From the 1970s to today
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Society and Leisure/Société et Loisir celebrates its milestone 40-year anniversary, the authors of this paper have set out to present a comprehensive overview of Canada-based peer-reviewed leisure studies research, dating back to the 1970s when the first Canadian peer-reviewed leisure studies journal issue was published in Canada. Through a detailed content analysis of the three Canadian peer-reviewed leisure studies journals – Leisure/Loisir, Society and Leisure, and the Journal of Leisurability – that have existed in Canada, four specific areas have been explored: (1) quantity of research articles published; (2) number of published authors affiliated with a Canadian university; (3) research methods employed using content analysis; and (4) thematic patterns in subject areas. The results revealed that (1) 532 Canada-based peer-reviewed articles were published (excluding position papers or opinion pieces, commentary articles, research summaries, and book reviews) in Canadian peer-reviewed journals since the 1970s; (2) 967 of the identified authors were based in Canada; (3) most Canada-based published research was quantitative, although from 2010 to present, qualitative research papers have outnumbered quantitative research papers; and (4) eight dominant thematic categories – outdoor recreation, youth and adolescent development, management of recreational services and facilities, municipal and community recreation, inclusive and/or therapeutic recreation for people with disabilities, health and wellness, leisure and aging, and leisure preferences/user patterns – occurred most often.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".