Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared how selected broadsheet newspapers from three countries covered female and male tennis players competing in the 2004 Wimbledon Championships. From the UK, The Times; from the US, The New York Times; and from Canada, The Globe & Mail were examined. This cross-national comparison extends the work of Vincent (2004) who performed an analysis of three British newspapers' coverage of Wimbledon (one broadsheet and two tabloids). Content analysis was used to compare the amount and prominence of the coverage devoted to female and male tennis players in all articles and photographs during the Wimbledon Championships fortnight (20 June—5 July 2004). Data were also collected one day prior to the Championships and one day following for a total of 16 days. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine statistically significant differences ( p<.05). Male players had significantly more total coverage than female players and significantly more articles/photographs. However, the size of the articles/photographs was not significantly different. The Times had the greater disparity in total space allocated to males versus females and significantly more total space devoted to Wimbledon coverage than the other two newspapers. Reasons for the results are discussed and compared to previous quantitative studies examining the newspaper coverage of other sport events.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".