The built sport spectacle and the opacity of democracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2004, city leaders in Washington, DC approved the construction of Nationals Park, in order to encourage Major League Baseball to relocate the Montreal Expos to the city. With public funding of the stadium exceeding $611 million, this became the most generous stadium subsidy in the United States at that time (Sports Facilities Reports, 2008). In this revealing action, city leaders clearly demonstrated their priorities by funding a project that primarily benefits visitors and corporate interests over the pressing needs of the city’s residents. Nationals Park is, thus, a spectacle, which, in David Harvey’s (2001b) terms helps to mask Washington’s ‘rot beneath the glitter’ (p. 140). Furthermore, and given the idiosyncratic political governance operating within Washington DC, this article utilizes a combination of Debordian and Lefebvrean theorizing in identifying and examining Nationals Park as a sporting edifice whose symbolic and aesthetic presence is rooted in the city’s pseudo-democratic aura, but whose socio-structural derivation and effects actively perpetuate Washington’s constitutional disenfranchisement and the locally iniquitous status quo.
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 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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".