MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021287788 · doi:10.1080/14927713.2006.9651346

Bingers: The performativity and consumption of “deviant” leisure

2006· article· en· W2021287788 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tim Crabbe

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure/Loisir · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerformativityConsumption (sociology)SociologyAestheticsPsychologySocial psychologyGender studiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite earlier pronunciations of the death of the sociology of deviance (Sumner, 1994), it would seem that its ghost lives on in the realms of leisure and popular culture. Leisure has always been an ambivalent sphere of social life: an expedient of both freedom and liberation and an instrument of repression. Whatever its public and moral hegemony then, leisure activities have always offered spaces for the pursuit of the “deviant,” from ritualised rule‐breaking to the more abhorrent forms of crime against the vulnerable. As such, while this paper does not suggest a return to a general concept to encompass the myriad practices that might be considered “deviant” within the realm of leisure today, it does seek to reinvent the concept as a beginning enterprise on the basis of a determination to refuse the more comfortable role of bystander. Through a critical theoretical appraisal and application to the practices surrounding city centre “binge drinking” it introduces the potential for considering contemporary forms of “deviant” leisure through the concepts of consumption and performativity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.015
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeisure/LoisirSame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207