‘Have you been to Hayward Field?’: Children’s sport and the construction of community in suburban
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the moral order of Canadian suburbs celebrates the ideal of ‘family togetherness’, their geographical expanse systematically frustrates the realization of this goal. The cost of suburban housing typically requires two incomes, with the logistical consequence of affording parents, who may well have to commute some distance to and from paid employment, with reduced time to spend with family. What is more, the rapid pace of movement into, and out of, the relatively new and growing suburbs of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia does little to promote or sustain extra-familial relationships between either children or adults. Yearning for a sense of community or belonging in such a setting reflects adults’ and children’s respective social positioning, but is further challenged by the characteristic impersonality of suburban living. ‘Suburbanization’ is, indeed, often stereotypically likened to a virtual disappearance of communal relations (Gusfield 1975: 96) or a retreat of social activities behind the closed doors of family life (Fine and Mechling 1991: 60). Pronounced social differentiation and dispersion do, in fact, engender forms of residential isolation that make extra-familial social life tenuous. Moreover, contemporary suburban life is frequently accompanied by gnawing parental insecurity about the adequacy of efforts at child rearing (Fine and Mechling 1991: 72-3; Dyck 2000a, 2000b). Hence, although the origins of suburbia may have celebrated a familycentred environment that declared the importance of providing for children within a domestic setting (Fishman 1987: 7-8) and that also implied the existence of community, in practice the exigencies of contemporary suburban life in British Columbia make the realization of these ideals a difficult matter. Nevertheless, suburban residents seek in differing ways and with varying degrees of success to fashion arrangements for overcoming isolation and connecting with others, not least through various renderings of community.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".