Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 1987, Susan Birrell and Diana Richter wrote “Is a Diamond Forever?” a study of feminist softball teams and their players’ efforts to use sport as a vehicle of political transformation, one of several pieces in which Birrell takes up sport as a feminist strategy. In this essay, I discuss the article as a historical artifact, contextualizing it in relation to intersectional critiques of second-wave feminism that readers might bring to it today. I argue that Birrell and Richter's emphasis on feminist attempts to transform sport remain relevant in a context where some progressive scholarship tends to prioritize critique over concrete change. I suggest that the feminist softball discussed by Birrell and Richter serves as an example of prefigurative or utopian politics or, in other words, activism through which people try to put their visions of socially just futures into practice. “Is a Diamond Forever?” reminds us of the feminist history of creative efforts to transform conventional models of sport and to engage the “potentialities” of sport in the project of making a better world.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".