MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801597320 · doi:10.1177/0193723518773280

Slap Shot! Sport, Masculinities, and Homelessness in the Downtown Core of a Divided Western Canadian Inner City

2018· article· en· W2801597320 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jordan Koch, Jay Scherer, Nicholas L. Holt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sport and Social Issues · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill University
KeywordsUnderclassGender studiesEthnographySociologyDowntownIndigenousContext (archaeology)MasculinitySolidarityColonialismCriminologySociology of sportPolitical scienceHistoryAnthropologyPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This urban ethnography explores how a group of low-income (often homeless) men performed a range of masculinities through a sport-for-development program in the Western Canadian city of Edmonton, Alberta. For more than two decades, weekly floor hockey games have been organized by local health workers as part of a broader sport-based intervention/corrective aimed, in part, at reforming Edmonton’s urban “underclass,” one that is decidedly Indigenous. Drawing upon three years of ethnographic fieldwork, our intersectional analysis examines both the adaptive qualities of various classed and racialized masculinities and demonstrates the “symbolic violence” associated with their performance in the distinctive settler–colonial context of Edmonton’s inner city. Finally, we examine how these weekly sporting interludes also provided opportunities for more caring versions of masculinity and for more enduring forms of solidarity, support, and community to be enacted and experienced.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0230.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sport and Social IssuesSame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207