MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W16434880 · doi:10.4161/cc.5.3.2415

"LIVING THE DREAM": THE DIALECTICS OF BEING A CANADIAN STUDENT ATHLETE IN THE UNITED STATES

2007· dissertation· en· W16434880 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Meghan Gilgunn

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDreamWitnessAthletesScholarshipDialecticEthnographyGender studiesCollege athleticsPedagogyPsychologyPolitical sciencePublic relationsSociologyMedicineLawPhysical therapyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many young Canadian athletes seek athletic scholarships from universities and colleges in the United States that will enable them to become student athletes. Among parents, coaches, and children who are involved in Canadian youth sports, a commonly encountered discourse characterizes athletic scholarships as offering beneficial opportunities, including playing American intercollegiate sports, earning an education, and living abroad. From a young age, Canadian athletes witness this discourse and it becomes a part of their lived experiences, especially should they attain “the dream” of winning an athletic scholarship and going to the U.S. as a student athlete. Drawing on original ethnographic research conducted in Boston, MA and the surrounding area, this thesis critically examines what “living the dream” involves for some student athletes and considers the dialectical relationship between their actual experiences and the popular discourse that both shapes and is sometimes contradicted by the realities of these young Canadians’ lives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0510.017
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207