MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366282691 · doi:10.1080/07053436.2023.2184095

Motherhood in leisure time: A longitudinal photographic analysis

2023· article· fr· W4366282691 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Parisa Saadat Abadi Nasab, Neil Carr

Bibliographic record

VenueLoisir et Société / Society and Leisure · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisIdeologyLeisure timePsychologyDevelopmental psychologyQualitative researchLongitudinal studyLeisure studiesSociologyGender studiesSocial psychologyRecreationMedicineSocial sciencePhysical activityPolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Family leisure can strengthen the bonds between family members and contribute to children’s health and learning. Family leisure also involves work from parents. It is often seen as a duty by parents, incorporating management of the experience and active involvement with their children. Traditional definitions of mothering, as care-givers, leave them with very little opportunity for their own leisure. This longitudinal study examines how motherhood has changed over time through the lens of family leisure. Using family leisure photographs, the paper examines changing ideologies of motherhood as they relate to broader societal changes in Otago, New Zealand. Over 100 years of photographs were analysed using visual qualitative thematic analysis. The findings show that, despite many social changes related to gender stereotypes and the social responsibility of parents, mothers are still the main carers of children. This is despite fathers becoming more involved with their children through leisure in recent decades.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLoisir et Société / Society and LeisureSame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207