MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156373832 · doi:10.7202/045216ar

Are We Having Fun Yet?

2011· article· en· W2156373832 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Bonita. Gracey

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnologies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationDisciplineControl (management)Through-the-lens meteringPublic relationsSociologyPsychologyLens (geology)Political scienceSocial scienceLawManagementEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines children’s adult-organized recreational sport through the lens of Foucauldian disciplinary technologies. Despite decades of effort and changes to children’s sport, there is still difficulty in meeting the needs of many of the participants. This article argues that it is time to seriously reconsider the dominating role that adults occupy in children’s sport and that we need to find ways to give more of the control of sport to the participants.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.018
Scholarly communication0.0100.016
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.005

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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.152 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthnologiesSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207