Bibliographic record
Abstract
A theme that has emerged in recent commentaries on leisure studies is the separation of leisure research in North America from comparable work being conducted elsewhere in the world. Several authors have argued that North American leisure research is parochial and isolated, both geographically and intellectually (e.g., Coalter, 1999; Samdahl & Kelly, 1999). One recent case in point is an article by Valentine, Allison, and Schneider (1999), in which the authors used content analysis to review the international orientation of articles published in the Journal of Leisure Research, Leisure Sciences, and Leisure Studies. They detected a level of ethnocentrism, particularly among North American scholars, which limits academic and professional growth. A feature of this article was the omission of any explicit mention of Canadian leisure research, either because the authors overlooked Canadian contributions to the field, or equated the borders of the United States with those of the continent. In a sense, then, the authors were guilty of committing the same error for which they were castigating their colleagues. This criticism was forcefully made by Walker (2000), who directed Americans ' attention to institutions, researchers, and journals in Canada, noting also the sizable contributions of Canadians to publication activity in the USA. As part of the ongoing process of evaluating leisure studies referred to above, I have been conducting a research project since 1999 with a view to identifying and understanding variations in patterns of research activity and dissemination, as well as other aspects of involvement in the North American leisure studies community. The present paper focuses on one aspect of the larger study, namely similarities and differences between Canadians and Americans,1 and the extent to which researchers in the two countries can be considered as a single, integrated community, or, alternatively, two solitudes existing side-by-side but in intellectual isolation from each other. This study is a quantitative analysis which should help to address the concerns expressed by Walker (2000), and to identify (1) the ways in which nationals of the two countries are part of an integrated research community, and (2) the ways in which they diverge.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.008 |
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".