A people’s future of leisure studies: the commune, the CHAZ, the CHOP and spatial reimaginations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What are the possible futures once we are freed from the limitations of our current conceptions of leisure-related spaces? The first aim of this article embraces critical, radical and even revolutionary action that has produced a reclamation of public and private space. What is examined are the ways that such projects reconceive of these spaces, some of which were former state leisure spaces (public parks and abandoned malls), to create new spaces for new forms of self-governance, new imaginations of citizenry and sites of ‘new’ recreation. A prime example in recent times was the actualization of the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ), the site of this political activist ethnographic study. The second aim is a discussion of what can be learned from such experiments in independence from dissent. The final aim of this article provides hints of the imaginative possibilities brought on by the tangible ways that people re-produce space.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".