MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096672671

Leisure and the Quality of Life. A New Ethic for the 70's and Beyond.

2016· article· en· W7096672671 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationVariety (cybernetics)Quality (philosophy)Citizen journalismPublic policyLeisure studiesPlan (archaeology)Quality of life (healthcare)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This book covers the national conference and consultation in Leisure and the Quality of Life held in the leisure- oriented, residential community of Rancho La Costa, California, in March of 1970. Cosponsored by the American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation (AAHPER) and the American Institute of Planners (AIP), the conference explored the leisure dimension of our future environment and what it can contribute to improving the quality of life for all Americans in the next 50 years. More specifically, the consultation sought to understand the cumulative effect of leisure on the environment, to link professional and public opinion, to provide wider national participation in policy discussions, and to determine implications and directions for the major institutions of society. The conference plan was designed to include a variety of methods of presenting content material and to permit participatory involvement by all those attending. These delegates from 25 states and Canada represented a variety of disciplines and organizations; policy implications and national goals were seen from the viewpoint of government, industry, labor, social agencies, education, and the lay community. References are included. (Author/SES)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.204
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207