Influence of Recreational Activities on Quality of Life in Retirees in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of the study was to analyze the influence of recreational activities on quality of life in retirees in Canada. Methodology: This study adopted a desk methodology. A desk study research design is commonly known as secondary data collection. This is basically collecting data from existing resources preferably because of its low cost advantage as compared to a field research. Our current study looked into already published studies and reports as the data was easily accessed through online journals and libraries. Findings: Recreational activities significantly enhance retirees' quality of life in Canada by improving physical health, reducing loneliness, and increasing life satisfaction. Activities like walking, gardening, and community involvement boost well-being and mental health. Structured programs offered by community centers also contribute to retirees' sense of purpose and belonging. Access to varied recreational options and social networks is essential for maintaining high life quality. Tailoring activities to individual interests and abilities is key to long-term benefits. Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: Activity theory, self-determination theory (SDT), socioemotional selectivity theory (SST) may be used to anchor future studies on influence of recreational activities on quality of life in retirees in Canada. Practitioners should design and implement customized recreational programs tailored to the specific needs, preferences, and health conditions of retirees. Policymakers should allocate resources and funding to support recreational programs specifically designed for retirees.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".