Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the interrelationships between scholarly Christian writings on leisure and leisure studies literature. As an academic field of study leisure studies is a fairly recent development, however throughout Christian history leisure has been considered by Christians such as Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin. A number of observations can be made from a review of these two bodies of literature. First, although numerous books have been written in recent decades by Christian scholars on the subject of leisure, very few of these scholars have been leisure studies scholars, and in most cases, these Christian writings have not made reference to some concepts prevalent in leisure studies literature (e.g., leisure as a state of mind, feminist perspectives, serious leisure). Second, with a few exceptions, leisure studies literature rarely references these Christian writings on leisure. Third, leisure studies literature sometimes takes biblical verses out of context and portrays the leisure attitudes and behaviours of some Christian groups such as the Puritans in an overly negative manner. Fourth, the recent interest within the leisure studies field of the relationship between leisure and spirituality offers the possibility of some convergence between the two bodies of literature, although the leisure studies literature tends to favour a more humanistic view of spirituality. In particular, qualitative research studies on leisure and spirituality give a voice to Christian perspectives as expressed through the words of Christian participants.
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 | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".