MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133675553 · doi:10.1080/00222216.2020.1855488

How do work and leisure contribute to Hong Kong Chinese’ life satisfaction?

2021· article· en· W3133675553 on OpenAlexafffund
Jingjing Gui, Shintaro Kono, Gordon J. Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Leisure Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLeisure satisfactionAutonomyPsychologyCompetence (human resources)Life satisfactionStructural equation modelingWork motivationSocial psychologySelf-determination theoryWork (physics)Political science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although research identifies both leisure and paid work as important contributors to subjective well-being (SWB), the mechanisms by which they do so remain understudied especially in non-Western contexts. A framework relevant to both leisure and work is basic psychological need theory, which posits that satisfaction of autonomy, relatedness, and competence needs enhances SWB. Therefore, this study examined the influence of basic need satisfaction during leisure and work on domain and global life satisfaction (GLS) among Hong Kong Chinese (HKC) workers. Cross-sectional data were collected through a telephone survey from 585 randomly sampled HKC. Structural equation modeling indicated that: (a) satisfaction of autonomy, relatedness, and competence positively correlated with leisure and work domain satisfaction, except for work competence; and (b) leisure and work domain satisfaction positively and similarly related to GLS. The findings are discussed in relation to the literature on leisure, work, SWB, and culture.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Leisure ResearchSame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207