MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393009251 · doi:10.1177/10126902241236244

“A little taste of what it would be like to be in the military”: Performing militarism at the Canada army run

2024· article· en· W4393009251 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Bridgette Desjardins

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review for the Sociology of Sport · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMilitarismIdeologyPoliticsSociologyEmbodied cognitionPolitical scienceLawPsychologyEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While significant attention has been paid to the perpetuation of pro-military ideology via discourse and political practice, less attention has been paid to the role of the body in (re)producing militarism. Drawing on 40 interviews with primarily civilian Canada Army Run participants, I argue that militarism is reproduced in part via civilians’ embodied performances. Performances of militarism allow participants to feel and thus reproduce militarism through the body. Performances of military support allow participants to orient themselves toward the military in a way that reproduces pro-military mythologies and situates the performer socially as national subjects who appropriately exalt the military (and are thus deserving of exaltation in turn), binding participants together and reaffirming social bonds created via shared love of the military. Ultimately, performances of militarism reify the military as exalted, insulating it from critical consideration by the public.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.029
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review for the Sociology of SportSame topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207