The consumption of sporting goods: a comparison between Belgian and Canadian students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Researchers exploring sport culture focus on its participant and spectator dimensions more so than on its material dimension, which Dant (1999) refers to as material culture. However, sporting goods are an essential part of the sport culture (Ohl, 2001; Penaloza, 1998; Lamont & Molnar, 2001; Underwood, Bond, & Baer, 2001). As such, it is important to focus on the material dimension of sport culture, from both sociological and marketing perspectives. Moreover, as sporting goods have become global products, an international perspective of the consumption sporting goods is appropriate. The purpose of this survey is to identify the role of material culture, i.e. the consumption, the usage, and the social meaning(s) of sporting goods in people’s sports and daily lives. This paper is a first exploration of an international comparative study in which Belgian and Canadian students are used as samples. The scope and level of analysis in this international comparison is limited to 1 and 2 year Kinesiology students. Despite many differences linked to each national situation, these students are nonetheless in similar circumstances, allowing for control of variables such as age, educational level and interest in the field of sport and kinesiology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".