MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039440802 · doi:10.1080/14927713.2020.1780936

Re-imagining leisure education with Canadian hope: will the caravan of American individualism keep rolling?

2020· article· en· W3039440802 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Rodney B. Dieser

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure/Loisir · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndividualismOrder (exchange)Perspective (graphical)Social changePublic relationsIntervention (counseling)SociologyPolitical sciencePsychologyBusinessLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leisure education needs to move beyond an American individualistic model focused on changing or fixing individuals and can be used to change ecological factors and be used in a system-directed and social policy perspective, such as addressing social problems facing Canadian families and communities. Individualistic development models of leisure education are often associated with a person-centred approach – which is when an individual person is placed at the centre of a program or intervention and human services workers look to the person to identify and express leisure needs, interests, goals and strategies to meet goals. In contrast, an ecological approach to change, also known as system-directed change, occurs when strategies are put forth in order to improve communities or other environmental factors in providing human services. Leisure education approaches, linked to Canadian society, are outlined in order to showcase system-directed and social policy-based leisure education.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0280.051
Scholarly communication0.0150.008
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeisure/LoisirSame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207