MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088106028 · doi:10.1080/14927713.2011.567064

Politics “out of place”? Making sense of conflict in sport spaces

2011· article· en· W2088106028 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Tiffany Muller Myrdahl

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure/Loisir · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersUniversity of Virginia
KeywordsDissentPoliticsSociologySpace (punctuation)BasketballRelevance (law)Function (biology)Statement (logic)AestheticsMedia studiesEpistemologyPolitical scienceLawHistoryArtLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite their relevance to the function of sport and social relations, the spaces produced in and through sport practices and performances remain under-examined. Consequently, there is little engagement with the logics that are employed in sport spaces or with the shape and material form that such logics take in sport spaces. Likewise, there is only a modest sense of how social change works in and through sport space. I argue that more attention must be paid to the social spaces that are both produced through and are productive of the intersections of sport and social relations. Without this awareness, the ways in which cultural values are reproduced through game-day practices and spatialized discourses remain obscured. My discussion focuses on on-court activism of and reactions to US college basketball player Toni Smith who, in 2003, held a series of protests against the US involvement in Iraq. This case illustrates the discursive construction of sport spaces as apolitical and shows that sport space played a vital role in Smith's statement of dissent.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0190.085
Scholarly communication0.0270.021
Open science0.0020.019
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeisure/LoisirSame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207