So all kids can play? Looking beyond the rhetoric of an equal playing field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the meaning and experiences of sport for young people living with lower incomes. Using data from interviews with 10 young people (aged 13–18) and six mothers, we engage with the work of Pierre Bourdieu to provide insight into the varied ways young people living with lower incomes were influenced by their social contexts. Narrative inquiry was used to further understand the meanings of sport for participants and the ways these were tied to their material conditions. Using creative non-fiction, research findings were transformed into stories to present the experiences of three teenagers: Joey, Stacey and Nathan. The concepts of habitus, capital and field are used in the discussion to explicitly theorise the similarities and differences between the stories and show the heterogeneity of sport experiences for young people living with lower incomes. Overall, the paper contributes empirical understanding by outlining the ways in which material conditions and family circumstances shaped young peoples’ experiences differently. In doing so, it disrupts the idea that sport is a level playing field and challenges the notion that sport is a worthwhile pursuit for all young people.
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 | 0.013 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".