Meaningful Plots: Leisure, ‘Rational Recreation’ and the Politics of Gardening in British Allotments (Mid 19th -mid 20th Centuries)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Si le jardinage communautaire est resté jusqu' à récemment un aspect relativement peu étudié de l'histoire des loisirs, il est devenu, ces dernières années, l'objet d'une analyse beaucoup plus détaillée. Le propos du présent article est de présenter une synthèse de ce travail qui a considérablement enrichi notre compréhension de cette forme de loisirs. Non seulement l'histoire des jardins communautaire en Grande-Bretagne remet en question les dichotomies traditionnelles entre le travail et les loisirs, mais elle montre aussi comment le jardinage était ancré dans un réseau complexe de significations et de relations politiques. Alors que les jardins communautaires étaient autrefois décrits comme une forme de récréation plutôt dépolitisée et consensuelle, les récents travaux historiques montrent en effet que leurs effets étaient plutôt plus complexes et parfois habilitants qu'on ne le pensait.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".