MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1811205356

The Athlete Stigma in Higher Education.

2007· article· en· W1811205356 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Herbert D. Simons, Corey Bosworth, Scott Fujita, Mark Jensen

Notice bibliographique

RevueCollege student journal · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueSports, Gender, and Society
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychologyBasketballAthletesStereotype threatCollege athleticsSocial psychologyTest (biology)CheatingStereotype (UML)White (mutation)Physical therapyMedicine
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In this study 538 collegiate athletes were asked how they were perceived and treated by faculty and other non athlete students. 33% reported they were perceived negatively by professors and 59.1% by students, Only 15% reported positive perceptions. 61.5% reported they were refused or given a hard time when requesting accommodations for athletic competitions. 62.1% reported a faculty member had made a negative remark about athletes in 370 athletes reported specific comments about athletes made by faculty and non athlete students. The comments reflected the dumb jock stereotype; low intelligence, little academic motivation and receipt of undeserved benefits and privileges. There were race, gender and sport differences in the stigmatization. Due in part to the dumb jock stereotype athletes are stigmatized (devalued social identity) in the academic domain. If a professor knows you are an athlete, you are assumed to be stupid until you can prove otherwise. (White male water polo) In a big, class (400 people). Before test professor said, It's an easy test. Even athletes can pass. (White male swimming) Professor asked the student athletes to stand on the first day of class and said, are the people who will probably drop this class. (African American female, basketball) INTRODUCTION Universities place a heavy burden on student athletes. They are expected to be both successful in the academic as well as the athletic domain. They must meet the same academic demands as other students with only minimal accommodations while devoting extensive time (30 to 40 or more hours a week) and energy to their sport, spending time away from classes for athletic competitions, satisfying demanding coaches whose livelihood depends upon their athletic performance, and maintain self esteem by performing up to their own, coaches' and family and friends' expectations. A less recognized burden faced by athletes is the negative perceptions and expectations by faculty and other students about their academic capability and motivation. These negative perceptions are embodied in the dumb jock stereotype that holds that athletes lack the motivation and intelligence to succeed academically at the intercollegiate level (Zingg, 1982, Leach & Conners, 1984). They are seen as academically unqualified illegitimate students whose only interest is athletics, who expect and receive special treatment from professors and others. The perception is that in order to remain eligible and participate in sports they put in minimum effort, do little academic work, take easy classes and have others do their work for them. Jokes like other forms of folklore can reinforce stereotypes and reflect issues that are of concern in society but cannot be expressed openly (Dundes, 1987). Dumb jock jokes provide a socially sanctioned way of expressing anxiety about the existence of intercollegiate athletics and the threat it poses to the academic integrity and purpose of the university. The following dumb jock jokes express these concerns: Did you hear they finally found twelve jurors who never heard about O.J.? Answer: Twelve of his professors at USC (Dundes, 1966). This concern about the lack of academic qualifications and seemingly non existent admission standards for athletes can be seen in the numerous examples of College Entrance exams for athletes found on the internet which include questions that a child could answer. A few examples follow (Jokes.com, 2005): What are coat hangers for? What time is it when the big hand is on 12 and the little hand is on the 5? Where does rain come from? (a) Macy's (b) A 9-11 store (c) Canada (d) The sky Athletes are also believed to receive undeserved extra benefits not available to other students. Extra benefits athletes are thought to receive include academic credit for no work, cars, girls, and illegal monetary payments as these light bulb jokes show. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,010
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,032

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,015
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0100,009
Communication savante0,0050,003
Science ouverte0,0010,009
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,039
Tête enseignante GPT0,360
Écart entre enseignants0,321 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations172
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCollege student journalMême sujetSports, Gender, and SocietyTravaux en français237 207