That is not my job: a critical content analysis of how social justice leadership concepts are (un/under)used within community recreation job descriptions of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored how social justice leadership concepts are taken up in existing community recreation practitioner job postings in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. A critical content analysis based in social justice leadership concepts was used to conduct deductive coding and analysis of 21 job descriptions. This analysis process generated insights about both manifest (words in text used) and latent (underlying meaning of words) content. For manifest content, the social justice leadership terms most used in the sample were diversity, inclusion, equity, and accessibility. For latent content, two themes emerged: (1) Status Quo Leadership Over Social Justice Leadership and (2) Omission of Core Social Justice Commitments: Praxis and Intersectional Responsiveness. Two recommended paths are proposed for practitioners to enhance the use of social justice leadership concepts in job descriptions: rethinking the who and rethinking the how. Future research directions are summarized in conversation with the study’s strengths and limits.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".