An agential realist reimagining of the concepts of “positive”, “youth”, “development”, and “sport”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary approaches to researching positive youth development through sport confine inquiry to normative and individualistic forms of development focused on teaching youth how to become economically productive citizens in tightly delimited social orders. The aim of the presentation will be to expose how humanist conventions narrowly circumscribe our thinking and how alternative disruptive ideas are needed to reimagine the concepts of “positive”, “youth”, “development”, and “sport”. To undertake this conceptual reimagining, an agential realist ontology and a diffractive methodology are deployed (Barad, 2007). Agential realism is a material and relational ontology problematizing anthropocentric and binarized categorizations of the world while diffraction serves as a conceptual tool to read and reveal the doings of phenomena in their intra-activity. Key questions to be explored during the presentation include: (a) How can the positive/negative binary be reimagined past its dualistic trappings?; (b) Does “youth/hood” have intrinsic value and can it be viewed as more than just a life stage toward becoming a “fully mature” and “emancipated” adult?; (c) What is “development” in a world where past, present, and future are always already threaded through one another?, and (d) What can organized youth “sport” become when reimagined as something other than a competitive, adult-led, and commodified practice bounded in strict spacetime delineations? Moving forward, if sport is to continue to be ethically defensible as a cherished social practice, alternative ontological passageways must be opened to expand researchers’ horizons, enabling us to inquire in ways that heighten the contributions of sport to development.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".