Whose National Team? Which Game? A Comparison of Television Coverage of the Canadian Women's, Men's and Sledge Hockey Games at Vancouver 2010
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In Canada, there is widespread belief that reflects the nation, its history and its people. Despite commercialization, globalization and changes in the mosaic, this widespread notion retains remarkable endurance. It remains, in the words of Whitson and Gruneau a story that Canadians tell themselves about what it means to be (1) In Canada, the imagined community is often thought to be best represented by 5 on skates plus goalie. We choose the word men here purposively. While nationalism is often unifying force, it masks number of divides and inequities related to social aspects such as gender, ethnicity, sexuality and class. Not everyone can stand in for the nation, especially in the mediated version. However, in the summer of 2009, Hockey Canada held training camp where they brought the three national teams (men's, women's and sledge) together, an attempt at overtly emphasizing equality across the three programs. (2) Coming into the 2010 Olympics and Paralympics, Hockey Canada explicitly set its goal as triple gold medal performance, including the men's, women's and sledge teams. Hockey Canada president Bob Nicholson publicly announced that anything less would be considered disappointment. In light of these efforts, an interesting question becomes how much this was picked up in the media coverage of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. This paper reports on an analysis of television coverage of games involving the teams, at the 2010 Olympic and Paralympics Games. In view of the nationalism that major international sports events such as the Olympics tend to invoke, and the similar medal pressures faced by each of these teams, any differences in the nature or quality of the coverage speak to notions of which national team matters most, and really gets to stand in for the country and express notions of national identity. Hockey, Nationalism and Identity Nationalism is an expected outcome in the media coverage coming from just about any broadcaster during the Olympic Games. With Canada hosting the Games, we can expect massive amounts of nationalism in the telecasts, since as media scholar Andrew Billings puts it: virtually every host nation defers to various 'cheer-leading' tactics when mass-producing the Games, in an attempt to maximize ratings. (3) In Canada, one form of cheer-leading is heavily promoting hockey, considered the national game. Arguments for as key part of identity date back to the early 20th century. In young nation struggling to find collective national symbols, provided common reference point. There is vast popular literature that stresses as Canadian, as and an integral part of being Canadian. Gruneau and Whitson circumscribed the core features of mythology as follows: Hockey is our game; it expresses something distinctive about how we Canadians have come to terms with our unique northern environment and landscape; it is graphic expression of who we are; the game's rough masculinity is testament to the distinctive passion and strength of the character; we are better at it than anyone else in the world; and the National Hockey League is the pinnacle of the game--and prominent institution. (4) mythology leaves out many--immigrants with no prior attachment to the game, the many women had little opportunity to play until the last two decades, or the many could not or did not participate for reasons of economics, culture or interest. (5) Such notions also obscure the heavily commercial nature of the game and its American connections. (6) Despite the problems and absences, nationalism and notions of hockey as Canadian are heavily promoted discourses with the media covering major tournaments involving national teams. …
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».