MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008324129 · doi:10.1080/01490400.2013.739906

Leisure Research for Social Justice: A Response to Henderson

2012· article· en· W2008324129 on OpenAlexaff
Diana C. Parry, Corey W. Johnson, William P. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial justiceSociologyEconomic JusticePower (physics)Critical theoryAffect (linguistics)Social changeSocial psychologyEpistemologyEnvironmental ethicsSocial sciencePsychologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leisure research based on critical theories is an effective path to social justice for groups and communities that are marginalized or oppressed by those in power. In response to Henderson (2011), who frames our work as postpositivist, we argue critical theories are a more appropriate research paradigm to reflect our philosophical positions. Our inquiry into leisure is informed by an emancipatory vision for social change that aims to enact social justice. In this response, we detail our rationale for embracing critical theories as an effective research-based approach to affect social justice. We conclude by suggesting that paradigm proliferation enables researchers to enhance social justice within their communities of concern.

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.036
Scholarly communication0.0170.031
Open science0.0050.010
Research integrity0.0430.086
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.276
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations79
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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