MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942619385 · doi:10.1080/01490400.2019.1597791

Leisure innovation and the transition to retirement

2019· article· en· W2942619385 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. Rebecca Genoe, Toni Liechty, Hannah R. Marston

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaby boomersGrounded theoryFocus groupFace (sociological concept)SociologyPsychologyAxial codingQualitative researchRelevance (law)GerontologyMarketingPublic relationsDemographic economicsBusinessSocial sciencePolitical scienceEconomicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Innovation theory posits that adopting new leisure activities contributes to well-being in later life. We explored the relevance of innovation theory among Canadian baby boomers transitioning to retirement. Using grounded theory and online qualitative methods, we recruited baby boomers who had recently retired or were planning to retire in the next five years. Twenty-five participants engaged in three two-week blogging sessions, followed by face-to-face focus groups/interview over about one year. Data, including blog posts from each session and focus group/interview transcripts, were analyzed using initial, focused, and theoretical coding. Two main themes, embracing retirement and pursuing new and former leisure, highlighted nuances of leisure and the transition to retirement as participants adjusted to increased free time along with shifting priorities and available resources. The findings supported innovation theory and suggested areas of refinement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations26
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeisure SciencesSame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207