Sporting Masculinity on the Gridiron: Construction, Characteristics and Consequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper draws on interviews with 81 Canadian football players and administrators across junior, university, and professional football, as well as 20 published autobiographies of football players, to examine the development and consequences of sporting masculinity. In this paper, the concept of sporting masculinity is further developed and contrasted with other masculinities, particularly hegemonic masculinity. Various aspects of sporting masculinity in Canadian football are examined such as: the development of a male space, sentiments of superiority both on and off the field, body image issues, playing through pain and injury, analogies of war, and football as a total institution. This paper concludes with a discussion of the dangerous and harmful consequences of sporting masculinity to football players, as well the larger social issues that arise from this identity and the characteristics it can entail. Key words: Sport; Masculinity; Violence; Qualitative ResearchResume: Cet article s'appuie sur des entretiens avec 81 joueurs et administrateurs de football canadiens, dans le foot junior, universitaire et professionnel, ainsi que 20 autobiographies publiees par des joueurs de football, pour examiner l'evolution et les consequences de la masculinite sportive. Dans cet article, le concept de masculinite sportive est developpee par contraste avec d’autres formes de masculinite, en particulier la masculinite hegemonique. De divers aspects de la masculinite sportive dans le football canadien sont examines, tels que le developpement d'un espace masculin, les sentiments de superiorite a la fois sur et hors du terrain, les problemes d'image corporelle, l’epreuve de douleur et de blessures, les analogies de la guerre, et le football comme une institution totale. Cet article se termine par une discussion sur les consequences dangereuses et nefastes de la masculinite sportive vis-a-vis des joueurs de football, ainsi que de grandes questions sociales qui decoulent de cette identite et les caracteristiques qu'elle peut comporter.Mots cles: Sport; Masculinite; La violence; La recherche qualitative
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".