The Nike Brand Embodied as a Playful Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Entertainment and digital culture are intertwining landmarks of contemporary culture. From countless mobile gadgets with wireless connections to more traditional modes of access, people are increasingly blurring the lines between near and far, public and private, online and offline. One aspect of these developments is the self-care technology, providing a vast array of methods for individuals to track their physical health. Our focus in this work will be the Nike+ Fuelband, a gadget that hybridizes experiences of healthcare, entertainment and social networking. This rubber band developed by Nike records user information — like cardiac beats, thermo impressions, distances travelled — and allows users to share information via a digital social network named Nike+ and to gain trophies and badges for their performance in physical exercises. Data collected through research with 60 Fuelband users showed that the playful component is quite a relevant experience, along with other features like ‘encouraging physical exercise,’ ‘sharing and comparing performance information in social networks,’ and the ‘endorsement of Nike brand.’ Based on these findings, we discuss Fuelband health claims in light of classic health promotion tenets as presented in the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. We also detail how aspects of play (competition, skill, rankings, etc.) and the discourse of health (self-care, physical improvement, etc.) are employed by other users and, ultimately, by a corporation to convince users to dedicate themselves to fitness. We conclude by highlighting the current tendency to treat health as a personal issue that can be controlled, publicized and improved by commercial means. Finally we analyse the potential harmful effects of making the individual the only one responsible for his or her health and the new configurations in understanding health, as a disputed field between individual, public sector, industry and technology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".