Moving beyond ideology: contemporary recreation and the neoliberal discourses of new public health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The suggestion that recreation needs to reaffirm historic values has become a common narrative throughout Canada’s contemporary recreation literature. A central assumption underlying these calls is that re-establishing the field’s social liberal beliefs will highlight the negative effects of neoliberal ideology and begin the process of repositioning recreation as a public good. Recognising, however, that the impact of neoliberalism does not lie solely in its status as a political ideology, we use this paper to demonstrate how our contemporary recreation practices are shaped by much more than the budget restrictions, efficiency measures, and audit processes of neoliberal ideology. Drawing on Foucault’s concept of governmentality, we analyse the articulation of neoliberalism as a political rationality during 16 focus groups and demonstrate how, in a recreation context, neoliberal discourses encourage individuals to govern their own subjectivity through healthy lifestyle and recreation practices. In doing so, we not only show how recreation is located within the dominant assumptions of new public health, we highlight the ways in which epidemiology has been used by participants to construct their understanding of recreation, physical in/activity, and health in ways that shaped their own behaviours and those of Others.
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 | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.165 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".