Globalization, cosmopolitanism, and leisure rights: The flaws of the <i>Sao Paulo Declaration</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump in 2016 are widely held to signal the return of protectionism and isolationism in the Anglosphere. This ran counter to the Sao Paulo Declaration, issued by the World Leisure and Recreation Association (1998). For nearly 20 years, the Declaration has been at the axis of debates on the preferred trajectory of leisure relations in the West. The Brexit and Trump election campaigns seized upon the undesirable consequences of globalization and cosmopolitanism, that is, job losses and the contraction of real wages caused by outsourcing, immigration, and the threats to ‘the whole way’ of national life. The campaigns exposed globalization as an uneven process that primarily benefits the elite, and cosmopolitanism as a patchwork process. The paper examines the meaning of globalization and cosmopolitanism, and their shortfalls, in the Sao Paulo Declaration. It moves on to consider the argument made by some writers in Leisure Studies that volunteerism is an antidote to the worst consequences of globalization.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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".