Outdoor leisure with dogs: an empirical evaluation of visiting shared outdoor leisure spaces in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined visits to shared outdoor leisure spaces (SOLS) with dogs, such as parks, woodlands, and beaches in the UK. Based on past qualitative and descriptive data, hypotheses and a conceptual model were developed. An online survey of dog guardians (n = 602) was analyzed using partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to test the impacts of human intrinsic motivation; dog well-being; the community benefit; and social bonding on the components of leisure involvement (attraction, centrality, and self-expression), and subsequently intention and visiting behavior in relation to SOLS. The results showed that human intrinsic motivation and community benefit had a positive impact on all aspects of leisure involvement, while dog wellbeing only affected attraction, and social bonding impacted centrality and self-expression. These findings contribute to a better understanding of dog guardians' behavior of visiting SOLS in the UK, providing insights for stakeholders responsible for designing, managing, and promoting these spaces.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".