Confronting two-tiered community recreation and poor women's exclusion: Promoting inclusion, health and social justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The social, psychological, and physical health benefits of participation in physical activity and other forms of recreation are well documented (Frankish, Milligan and Reid; Sallis and Owen; Reid and Dyck), and evidence suggests that low-income women view access to community recreation as an important dimension of their health and their communities (Weber; Frisby and Hoeber). Although many community recreation departments in Canada have a social mandate of providing services to all citizens to promote health and well being, consistent barriers to regular involvement persist for those who live on the margins and are unable to conform to dominant expectations inherent in modern forms of public recreation (Frisby, Crawford and Dorer; Lyons and Langille;Harvey). With its individualist ideology, classist notions of self-responsibility, and fees for service, we argue that community recreation has become a two-tiered system where only those with sufficient social, cultural, and financial resources can participate (Kidd). Consequently, insufficient subsidies, policies requiring "proof of poverty," and discrimina- tory practices exclude poor women from being actively involved in health-promoting forms of community recreation.\nThe purposes of this paper are: i) to examine how low-income women see involvement in community recreation contributing to their health, and ii) to examine low-income women's experiences with exclusionary community recreation policies and practices. Hearing the voices of those who are marginalized from the knowledge production and policy development process is important when considering how public sector programs, policies, and practices can become more inclusive (Lord and Hutchison; Frisby and Hoeber). Through fostering inclusion rather than classist forms of service delivery, the community development and social justice mandates of many community recreation departments is advanced thus providing health-promoting resources for those living on the margins.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".