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 OpenAlex
Diana C. Parry, Corey W. Johnson, William P. Stewart

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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