Leisure and the Anthropocene—Special Issue Introduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Anthropocene, introduced by scientists in 2000 to name the current geological epoch, draws attention to the scale and force of anthropogenic impacts on Earth systems. With this special issue, we aim to inspire and assemble scholarship that has an intentional focus on understanding, critiquing, and (re)imagining relationships between leisure and the Anthropocene. More specifically, we have invited contributing authors to explore questions such as: how is the field of leisure studies grappling with global ecological crises? How does leisure matter in the Anthropocene? How has leisure been complicit in producing the Anthropocene? How might leisure help heal, or inflict further damage to, human and more-than-human relations within planetary systems? This article introduces the special issue by presenting brief background information for readers and illuminating three cross-cutting themes within the special issue manuscripts, namely: (a) times, temporalities, and rhythms; (b) ethical relationships and responsibilities; and (c) “new” sensibilities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.012 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".