Toward a critical examination of social capital within leisure contexts: From production and maintenance to distribution
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Perhaps because of the normative foundations upon which our field was built, leisure researchers have focused on social capital at the group level with a particular emphasis on how communities of interest develop and more or less maintain social capital as a collective asset. In so doing, they have tended to concentrate on the positive externalities associated with social capital production. This approach to examining social capital in leisure contexts ignores the egocentric properties of social capital and implies incorrectly that social capital can be appropriated equally by all members of a social network. While social capital does represent resources embedded in social relations, the access and use of such resources ultimately reside with the individual. The uncritical acceptance within our field that social capital is a positive dimension in building community capacity fails to appreciate that members of a social network have differential access to social capital by virtue of their social position within that network. The individual returns of social capital are often (maybe even usually) distributed unevenly. With this recognition, the author calls on leisure researchers to focus on inequalities in access to social capital that result from what Lin (2001) referred to as a capital deficit or return deficit. Correspondingly, leisure researchers are challenged to pay greater attention to what Foley, Edwards, and Diani (2001) termed "use‐value," that is, how appropriable social capital really is. Only by concentrating on the actual distribution of social capital can leisure researchers begin to de‐essentialize the relational ties developed in leisure contexts and the benefits accrued through them. Résumé Les chercheurs en loisir se sont souvent concentrés sur le capital social au niveau du groupe avec une emphase particulière sur le maintient du capital social comme capitaux collectif, et la façon dont les communautés d'intérêt se développent. Une tendance à se concentrer sur l'aspect positif de la production du capital social dans des contextes de loisirs ignore les propriétés égocentriques du capital social, et semble démontrer que le capital social peut être approprié également par tous les membres d'un réseau social. Tandis que le capital social représente des ressources incluses dans des relations sociales, l'accès et l'utilisation de telles ressources résident finalement avec l'individu. Notre champ perçoit souvent le capital social comme une dimension positive relié directement aux capacités communautaires, cette approche non critique oublie que les regroupements sociaux en vertu de leur position sociale ont différents accès au capital social. En plus les bénéfices du capital social sont souvent distribués inégalement. L'auteur invite les chercheurs en loisir à se concentrer sur les inégalités de l'accès au capital social, car ceux‐ci peuvent avoir des répercussions négatives ‐ la création d'un déficit capital ou déficit de retour (Lin, 2001). Un défi suggère d'apprêter une plus grande attention à ce que Foley, Edwards, et Diani (2001) aient nommé la ≪ valeur d'utilisation ≫ c'est‐à‐dire, comment le capital social est vraiment disponible à tous les membres de la collectivité. Seulement, une examination critique de la distribution réelle du capital social pourra démontrer les avantages et désavantages qui sont accrus par le loisir. Keywords: social capitalsocial structureuse‐valueleisure relationshipsaccessdistributionMots clefs: structure socialecapital socialloisir et rapportaccèsdistribution
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it