MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1811205356

The Athlete Stigma in Higher Education.

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

Bibliographic record

VenueCollege student journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyBasketballAthletesStereotype threatCollege athleticsSocial psychologyTest (biology)CheatingStereotype (UML)White (mutation)Physical therapyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from 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. …

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations172
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollege student journalSame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207