“Without [surfing], it’s kind of like Groundhog Day, but the … Twilight Zone version”: a phenomenological study of surfers’ experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic altered life and leisure activities for much of the world. Lockdowns were meant to keep people safe but prevented them from doing leisure activities important for wellbeing. Surfing was banned in many coastal communities. Surfers rely on surfing for their physical, mental, and social wellbeing. The purpose of this longitudinal phenomenological study was to explore surfers’ experiences of the pandemic using virtual interviews and photo journaling over seven months. The international sample included 29 surfers. The results demonstrated that participants had different experiences depending on their location. While some could not surf for a while, others could surf but still had to change their surfing process. As restrictions relaxed, surfing became a safe activity to keep participants sane, physically healthy, and socially connected. Surfing and the ocean were even used to protest injustice. The findings reveal the importance of expanding access to surfing and the coast.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".