Sport and Social Regulation in the City: The Cases of Grenoble and Sheffield
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article seeks to redress the dearth of comparative urban sports policy literature, undertaking an historical analysis of the development of sports policy in a French and a British city (Grenoble and Sheffield) from the late 1960s to the end of the century. Both of the cities, though very different in political, cultural and economic terms, have given considerable prominence to, and have significantly changed the nature of, local sports policy. The article employing an approach drawn from regulation theory identifies and explains similar trends evident in both cities. There is in both cases a “structured coherence” between the hardware (spectacular sporting facilities / events / sporting spectacle), organisational forms (commercialised, de-bureaucratised operations) and the dominant sets of social relations (increasingly market relations) which characterise their emergent sports policy systems and which systematically privilege market over social interests, reflecting post-Fordist policy goals despite very different political, institutional and structural contexts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".