MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983072853 · doi:10.1080/17430437.2011.614781

Contested perspectives of ‘marvel’ and ‘mockery’ in disability and sport: Accra, Ghana

2011· article· en· W1983072853 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anne-Marie Bourgeois

Bibliographic record

VenueSport in Society · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAthletesPromotion (chess)Qualitative researchSociologyGender studiesPolitical scienceEconomic growthPublic relationsSocial sciencePoliticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past, persons with disabilities and the relationship between disability and sports were excluded from discussions of development. Within the past 15 years, however, there has been a proliferation of ‘development through sport’ initiatives and a widespread promotion of the intended and unintended outcomes of participation in sport for persons living in low- and middle-income countries. From the vantage point of development studies, and drawing on qualitative research methods, this article examines sport as a vehicle for the human development of persons with disabilities in a Ghanaian community. It presents the athletes as active agents, and highlights their engagement in daily struggles and strategies to be respected and recognized in both sport and society, as well as links their efforts to questions of marvel and mockery. The setting is the city of Accra, Ghana, and the athletes are female and male athletes of the Ghana Society of the Physically Disabled.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0170.029
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSport in SocietySame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207