Who is the city for? Sports facilities and the case of Vancouver’s public golf courses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article contributes to literature on the politics of sport facility provision through a case study of urban public golf courses in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Vancouver is consistently rated among the least affordable cities in the world. The city’s three primely-located public golf courses – McCleery, Langara, and Fraserview – have thus been subjects of periodic debate: might they be redeveloped for other uses, such as housing? Herein, we report on a frame analysis aimed at unearthing and contrasting different responses to this question. Drawing from publicly-accessible materials, we specifically identify three positions on public golf’s future: 1) that golf courses should remain as they are; 2) that golf course land should be redeveloped, in part for housing; and 3) that golf courses should be converted to public parks and other recreational facilities. Notably, the same three frames have been mobilised in support of these three positions, albeit in competing ways: an economic frame where public golf is positioned as either sufficiently profitable, or not; an access and equity frame that focuses on matters such as affordable housing and fairness in leisure service provision; and an environmental frame that focuses mainly on the ecology of green space. These findings inform a discussion of the Vancouver case and the issue of competing virtues in sport facility provision. The fact that proponents of all three positions in the Vancouver debate effectively present an argument based on sustainable development is deemed a complicating factor in arriving at a consensus pathway forward.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".