Irish diaspora and sporting cultures of conflict, stability and unity : analysing the power politics of community development, resistance and disempowerment through a case study comparison of Benny Lynch and 'The Glasgow Effect'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on writing and research that considers philosophically astute, intellectually radical and culturally nuanced approaches to community development in Scotland and the USA. This chapter: considers the power politics of community work in Glasgow; highlights the importance of culture, sport, arts, and traditions in both Scotland and the USA; illustrates the significance of indigenous knowledge in Canadian and analyses the stigmatisation of some culturally significant activities (e.g. The Benny Lynch Statue Campaign and Black African American community development in the USA) as a basis for community based action; and explores how culturally important activities and local history can serve as the basis for personal development, social change, and community unification. In so do doing, it explores the insights that emerge when we place research, e.g. the Glasgow Effect report, within the historical context of assets-based community development in Scotland and The USA and explains how such a comparative analysis enables us to understand the fluid and essential role that culture plays in local community development. In particular this chapter considers tensions between stability and conflict in community work and highlights that radical community self-empowerment that seeks to confront decades of oppression will also bring with it processes of stigmatisation that seek to shame and control populations. The chapter concludes that whilst culture is an essential component in local capacity building, by taking an international perspective and comparing Scotland to the USA, we can demonstrate that culture is always political and that cultures of community development can never be separated from local and national power politics that for decades have been associated with disempowerment, oppression and the suppression of radical minority ethnic voices.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".