Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend: An Autoethnographic Analysis Of Softball's Empowering Potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to dominant gender ideology, the body has become a site for personal and political power struggles and many everyday practices maintain the current power dynamics and the dominant ideology regarding gender hierarchy. These occurrences help to sustain an ideology that positions men and women in opposition, with the male role representing superiority and strength, and the female role representing inferiority and weakness. It is of interest to discover whether participation in certain sports can influence a larger ideological shift by empowering girls to reclaim control over their own bodies and view them as shining examples of their own competence and capabilities. This paper utilizes the analytic autoethnography method in order to explore how the researcher’s experiences playing softball illuminate hidden social intricacies that increase the sport’s empowering potential. Despite the social and physical privilege associated with researcher’s subjective perspective, the results contained themes relating to fear, frustration, power, control, and a supportive environment, all of which are variables impacting the likelihood of a positive and empowering experience. Empowering benefits were attributed to controlled and powerful use of the body, a strong support structure both on field and in the stands, and a safe atmosphere within which to practice gender fluidity and defy gender normative roles. So, while the results are not generalizable to all female athletic experiences, they can still be used to structure a safer, more empowering place within sport. This work shows that there is a process to personal empowerment and that some variables foster and maintain the feeling of empowerment, while others dissolve it. By understanding these intricacies, those seeking to utilize sport as a tool for social justice may increase the likelihood that participants will have a positive experience.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".