MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283688566 · doi:10.1177/20563051221107632

The Social Mediatization of Lifestyle Sport: Continuity and Novelty in the Online Skate Subculture

2022· article· en· W4283688566 on OpenAlexaff
L. Dugan Nichols

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Media + Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAdventure Sports and Sensation Seeking
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkateSubculture (biology)NoveltyParticipatory cultureSociologyCybercultureSocial mediaMedia studiesScholarshipCitizen journalismAdvertisingComputer scienceThe InternetPsychologySocial psychologyWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceBusinessEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on mediatization theory, this article tracks how skateboarders experience and negotiate the entry of social media into their subculture. Building on existing scholarship, I show how social media and digital devices retain existing values within the culture while simultaneously introducing new challenges. To illustrate the phenomena of continuity and novelty in the online skate subculture, I analyze two case studies pertaining to YouTube. The first is a textual analysis of a typical skate video. Released on YouTube in 2020, the BE FREE video exhibits neoliberal, apolitical, masculine, and individualist values that go back decades in skate culture. The second case involves one of the most popular hubs of online skateboarding today: The Berrics YouTube channel, which claims 1.3 million subscribers and over 4,500 individual videos. I show how The Berrics maintains a one-dimensional positivity through its posts and interactions with fans, and I argue that it is still experimenting with the handling of negative feedback that participatory media allow. I also provide a brief history of skateboard media to properly contextualize these case studies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Media + SocietySame topicAdventure Sports and Sensation SeekingFrench-language works237,207