Leisure Time Use, Meaning of Life, and Psychological Distress: Comparing Canadian and Korean Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><em>Older adults’ day-to-day leisure time activities both reflect and stimulate physical, cognitive, and social capacities that contribute to their quality of life. To better understand how leisure activity choices and possible impacts vary across two cultures, this questionnaire-based study compared leisure time use, perceived meaning of life, and psychological distress for 617 older adults in Canada (n=298) and the Republic of Korea (Korea) (n=319). Compared to Koreans, Canadian respondents spent more time overall in leisure activities and devoted a higher percentage of their total leisure time to active, rather than passive, activities. They spent significantly more of their time on cognitively active activities, while Koreans preferred socially and physically active ones and scored significantly higher on both meaning of life and psychological distress. Both groups spent more of their time watching television than on any other single reported activity. Age group, retirement status, health, education, and income varied across the two countries and were significantly associated with aspects of leisure time use for each group. The results identify areas for improvement if Canadian and Korean older adults’ leisure time use is to effectively support their aging well.</em></p>
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".