MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607325276 · doi:10.1057/978-1-137-56479-5_51

Against Limits: A Post-structural Theorizing of Resistance in Leisure

2017· book-chapter· en· W2607325276 on OpenAlexaff
Erin K. Sharpe

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResistance (ecology)Power (physics)PoliticsPerspective (graphical)SociologyEpistemologyOrder (exchange)Work (physics)AestheticsPolitical scienceLawPhilosophyEconomicsComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In its recognition of oppositional behavior as informed and political, resistance offers us a way to explore the interconnections between leisure and politics in meaningful ways. However, for the concept to have utility for theorizing theses interconnections, it needs to be located within broader theorizations of power. Drawing on the work of Foucault, this chapter offers a post-structural theorizing of power and resistance. In contrast to modernist binary conceptualizations of power and resistance, Foucault conceptualized power as circulating through a culture or a system and exercised at innumerable points and times. To Foucault, resistance was power exercised in the attempt to destabilize the limits of the present order. The chapter applies Foucault’s perspective of resistance as “against limits” to leisure, and argues that we can think of leisure as resistance when it expands the possibilities for what we can do and who we might imagine ourselves to be.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.040
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooksSame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207