Bicycles and the Potential of Unstructured Sport for Development and Peace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sport for Development and Peace (SDP) continues to grow, both in research and practice. Recently, researchers have considered the merits of unstructured sport as a way of realizing sport’s benefits while circumnavigating its perceived problematic elements. This article reports findings from research on ‘Bicycles for Development’ (BFD) – a movement that trades on bicycle access as a way of achieving development objectives. We draw from interviews and fieldwork with BFD stakeholders, with the aim of examining BFD in relation to the SDP field – and de-sportization especially. Three research findings are relevant along these lines: (1) bicycles as beneficial due to their inherent multi-functionality; (2) the merits of unstructured physical activity; and (3) factors that impact negatively on bicycle access and thus might hinder BFD’s transformational potential. We conclude with reflections on BFD’s potential in subverting both common notions of sport in SDP and the neoliberal model of SDP provision.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".