Engaging the field through retrospective methods: a Cambodian story
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper illustrates how sport may be associated with community development and peace building when marshalled by committed and influential local individuals. However, in keeping with the main theme of this special issue, the thrust of the paper is as methodological as it is substantive. Our beginning point is the argument that while innovative in many respects, the ‘sport, social development and peace’ (SDP) literature has been rather limited methodologically speaking. Paradoxically for a social arena that so obviously depends on the prolonged stewardship of key individuals, a life history or ‘storied’ approach has rarely been undertaken. In this paper, we attempt to redress this methodological imbalance by making a case for the potential usefulness of such ‘recall methods’ and, specifically, by both ‘chronologizing’ and ‘narrativizing’ the life of a man who has been central in promoting sport as a vehicle for community development in one of the most economically and politically challenged of all Southeast Asian countries – Cambodia. Thus, by arguing that life history approaches have the potential to make a meaningful contribution to knowledge and understanding, this paper engages and hopefully advances the methodological debate in the SDP literature.
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 | 0.026 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".