MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366759826 · doi:10.1080/01490400.2023.2201284

The ‘Home’ Re-Framed: Interrupting Key Assumptions of the <i>Home</i> in Leisure Studies

2023· article· en· W4366759826 on OpenAlexaff
Giana Tomas, Kimberly J. Lopez

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipSociologyMobilitiesSociology of leisureSpace (punctuation)Perspective (graphical)Social psychologyAestheticsPsychologySocial sciencePolitical scienceComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

‘Home’ is often central to discussions of leisure as ‘home’ has potential to create a sense of place, facilitate personal control, and encourage creative self-expressions. Within leisure studies/sciences ‘home’ remains privileged and uncritiqued. This stable perspective assumes ‘home’ as a universal concept that is commonly known, understood, and taken-for-granted. Transdisciplinary scholarship articulates ‘home’ as having multiple meanings, and through the disruption of the standard template of ‘home’, other possibilities for living ‘home’ can be actively (re)created. Leisure studies may benefit from critical explorations of ‘home’ described in mobilities, diasporic and cultural/geography literatures. This article serves to conceptually dis-locate the ‘home’ and offer a revived starting point for its critique in leisure studies. To do so, we share a critical exploration of ‘home’ in leisure studies, articulations of its re-imagined formations using transdisciplinary literature, and present implications for conceptualizing ‘home’ differently.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.143
Scholarly communication0.0200.020
Open science0.0030.015
Research integrity0.0040.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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