Easy as riding a bike? Bicycling competence as (re)learning to negotiate space
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Safety concerns, notably sharing road space with motor traffic, pose barriers for bicycling. To address safety concerns, bicycle courses are designed to provide skills and know-how for bicyclists to share road space with traffic. This paper used Social Practice Theory combined with a critical gender lens to examine the impact of a bicycle course for women living in Vancouver, Canada. We aimed to: 1) describe bicycling competences and associated materials and meanings; 2) compare bicycling competences at different stages of uptake and maintenance; and 3) identify gendering processes shaping bicycling practices. We conducted interviews with 32 women in the year following their participation in a bicycle course. Data collection and analysis were guided by interpretive description methodology. Participants described competences as skills for road positioning and route-finding, knowing formal and informal rules (laws, etiquette) to interact with other road users, and having strategies to minimise gender harassment. Regarding uptake and maintenance, women with opportunities to engage in bicycling cultivated competences more quickly. Those without suitable bicycles rarely rode; others described a virtuous circle where more time in the saddle led to greater confidence. Gendering processes shaped nearly all aspects of bicycling and included safekeeping (taking disproportionate personal responsibility for safety) and cultivating an assertive bodily comportment to take up space. We recommend that courses be augmented with support to acquire suitable bicycles, social opportunities for bicycling, continued investment in bicycle infrastructure, education for motorists, and discussion regarding etiquette between bicyclists.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it