‘Every brew is a challenge and every glass of a good beer is an achievement’: home brewing and serious leisure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploratory study contributes to the body of knowledge of leisure research, investigating various dimensions related to home brewing, particularly reasons for and benefits from engaging in this activity through the lens of the Serious Leisure Construct (SLC). Although evidence suggests that home brewing has increased in popularity, to date, it has received limited attention from the academic literature. The study is based on the responses of 219 home brewers in Australia. The employed content analysis and word association identified the feeling of a rewarding and enjoying experience, affordability, sharing, brewing-to-taste, and socialising opportunities as key perceived benefits. In addition, various links between the findings and the SLC were identified. Overall, the findings revealing the seemingly multifaceted nature of home brewing, which combines tangible elements such as producing the craft beer, and intangible, for instance, sharing and socialising, highlight important theoretical and practical implications for leisure involvement. © 2017 Canadian Association for Leisure Studies / Association canadienne d’études en loisir
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".