Football as a terrain of hope and struggle: beginning a dialogue on social change, hope and building a better world through sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From diplomats and politicians, to the executives of sports governing bodies and non-governmental development agencies, to grassroots activists, sport – particularly football – is invariably invoked as an object of hope and a vehicle for building a better world. However, how hope is conceived by these various actors and institutions, and the better world that they imagine is often left unexamined. The purpose of this paper, a collaboration between a researcher interested in sport for development and peace and an activist involved in South African social movements and community football, is to begin an exploration of different understandings of hope and social change in relation to sport. Our aim is to demonstrate that reorienting discussions around how social change is conceptualised in different ways can result in critical understandings of how sport is currently being mobilised in various ways to affect change, and the potential alternatives that are being overlooked.
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 | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.087 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".