Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since first travelling to Japan in 2008, I have been fascinated by the culture of Japanese gift giving, a process of exchange that involves giving, receiving, and repaying.In Japan, the traditional cloths used to wrap and carry things are called Furoshiki and the practice of wrapping is an art.The culture of gifting in Japan, I find both fascinating but also discomforting.I am often befuddled by the expectations around receiving and the weight of the obligation to partake in this exchange process in particular ways.Joy Hendry, in her book Wrapping Culture, discusses the intercultural communication and the meanings and expectations associated with the practice of gift giving and how wrapping and unwrapping are intentional acts. 1 When we offer a gift, we are simultaneously offering something but also creating a 'debt' of a sort.It is relational work that calls us to lean into discomfort and to make meaning from it.Much of my work with the Sport History Review over the past seventeen years (as book review editor, editorial board member, associate editor and editor) has been relational work of giving and receiving.There is much I reflect on from conversations and discussions with authors, colleagues, mentors, and students who have pushed me in sometimes uncomfortable but also productive and necessary ways as they challenge me to look closely at my presuppositions, my responsibilities, and my praxes.As anthropologists Susanna Harris and Laurence Douny write: "to unwrap is not simply to reverse wrapping; the act of unwrapping is significant in itself and has its own outcomes." 2And yet, as Hendry writes "we are perhaps overly concerned with the 'unwrapping' with revealing the perceived essence of things, when we might do well to examine a little further the nature of the concealment used." 3 I often think about the "wrappings" we use in our lives, our research practices and our teachingto think about what they mean and what is revealed when we unwrap the structures, logics, and taken-for-granted ways of engaging in and with academia, sport history, and our own research practices.How do we make visible and refuse the status quo, read the silences, embrace counternarratives, sit in the surprise and awe of uncomfortable disclosures, and unravel our research practices and conventions as we look to the future?
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".