Automobility and The Social Construction of Longboarding in The District of North Vancouver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Longboarding has become increasingly popular in recent years in Canada and its practice on public streets has lead to serious injuries, including fatalities and a highly contested debate about its legitimacy on public roads. Using a case study within a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) framework, this paper analyzes a series of debates about longboarding that took place during city council meetings in a community in British Columbia, Canada. The critical study of automobility - our social and cultural predisposition to the car as mobility - is adopted to consider how it constructs longboarding within these public policy debates. The results indicate that longboarding as an activity on public roads challenges automobility and "common sense" perceptions of road use. Longbaorders are constructed as illegitimate road users who create a danger to others, especially drivers. The debates about longboarding highlight the pervasiveness of our `car culture' and the difficulty in incorporating alternative forms of transportation into a system that prioritizes automobiles and drivers over other forms of mobility.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".