Academic Attainment and Canadian Intercollegiate Athletics: Temporal Shifts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study the academic attainment of male and female intercollegiate athletes at a mid-sized Canadian university was examined for varying time periods in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. The academic performance of the athletes is compared, in each case, to a sample of non-athletes matched on year of first enrollment, academic program at first enrollment, and gender. On various measures the findings indicate that the student athletes performed increasingly well in comparison to their non-athlete counterparts from time period to time period. This pattern was more marked for females than males. In the 2000s, female athletes graduated successfully more often than female non-athletes and were more often enrolled in Honors programs. Female athletes consistently outperformed male athletes in all three time periods. We conclude by discussing the structure and culture of intercollegiate sport in Canada in order to broach the question of why the intercollegiate sport experience at this Canadian university has not hindered academic success. Comparisons with findings from American studies are ventured to offer a preliminary cross-cultural analysis of American/Canadian differences in intercollegiate sport culture.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".