“Hands off”: responsibilizing low-income citizens through fee assistance programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale To critically examine fee assistance programs (FAPs) through the lens of responsibilization and discuss the implications of creating access to sport for low-income families.Method Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 volunteers and administrative staff from community sport organizations in New Brunswick who facilitated FAPs for their organizations.Findings Four themes were constructed and discussed, illuminating how FAPs responsibilize low-income families: (1) Don’t advertise, don’t share: Applicants do all the work; (2) Passive but efficient: Processes of FAPs; (3) It’s always the parent: Communication of FAPs; and (4) You have to take ownership: Families need to be accountable.Practical implications This study is valuable to practitioners interested in understanding how FAPs may cause harm by excluding low-income families.Research contribution This study demonstrates how responsibilization is evident in facilitating FAPs in community sport organizations in New Brunswick and the consequences of creating access to community sport.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".