Snyder, Gregory, Skateboarding LA: Inside Professional Street Skateboarding.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
T here has been a recent spate of academic books and articles focused upon action/lifestyle sports, with skateboarding being an especially frequent topic of investigation.In terms of scope, this particular book from sociologist and ethnographer Gregory Snyder illustrates the lives, spaces, and community of urban male street skaters in Los Angeles that aspire to become or already are professionals.Skateboarding, like many other action/lifestyle sport pursuits, has become much more popular since the turn of the new Millennium, with new, diverse participants utilizing both the city street and proliferating skate parks.Snyder clearly situates this book within the traditional urban masculine skate demographic that has historically been street-based.Indeed, up front, he outlines that "This book is about professional street skateboarding, a highly refined, athletic, and aesthetic pursuit, from which a large number of people profit…" (9).The book's focus on male-oriented street skateboarding relies heavily upon the oft-used concept of urban subcultures.Snyder invokes this conceptual cornerstone in order to support the idea that his male urban skater participants have a unique set of beliefs, aesthetic styles, working practices, and communal norms.He consequently argues that skaters can gain more kudos depending on how they adhere to and display subcultural markers and codes.For instance, the book offers some examples of how street skaters hoping to advance in this social field need to be seen as technically proficient and yet remain modest and team players.Further, Snyder provides readers with comprehensive descriptions of skaters and their affiliates, demonstrative of his immersion within the field.Snyder eventually takes the reader into more nuanced territory by explaining that classic subcultural ideas, which pitted young workingclass males in a symbolic struggle against mainstream capitalist society, should also now account for subcultural entrepreneurialism.This line of analysis dovetails with current work in the field that engages with the neo-liberal condition, revealing that seemingly playful and 'DIY' activ-
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.007 |
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".