MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995289072 · doi:10.3138/jrpc.21.suppl_1.003

Holy Acceptable Violence? Violence in Hockey and Christian Atonement Theories

2009· article· fr· W1995289072 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Tracy J. Trothen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDoping in Sports
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesIce hockeySexualizationSociologyTheologyEthnologyGender studiesPhilosophyHuman sexuality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’hockey et le christianitsme sont souvent considerer des activité spirituels pour leur disciples et participants. Cet essai, écrit d’une perspective morale féministe, examine plusieur type de violence qui caractérise l’hockey professionnel au Canada, incluent la justice économique, commodification et sexualization des athletes, dévouement et héroisme, dommages physiques au cours des jeux, l’abus sexuel, et une mentalité dualistique qui rend les autre joueurs non-humaines. Des parallèles entre ces type de violence et des théories chrétiennes classiques d’expiation sont établis, avec attention aux conséquences. Le normalité de la violence des théories chrétiennes classiques d’expiation et dans l’hockey professionnel au Canada est discuté et critiquer. Hockey and Christianity are described as ways of being spiritual for followers and participants. This essay is written from a feminist ethical perspective and examines violence characterizing professional Canadian hockey including: economic justice, and commodification and sexualization of athletes; self-sacrifice and heroism; on-ice bodily harms; sexual abuse; and a dualistic mentality that alienates and negates the other. Parallels between this violence and classical Christian atonement theories are drawn, with attention to consequences. The normativity of violence both in classical Christian atonement theories and in professional Canadian hockey is argued and critiqued.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureSame topicDoping in SportsFrench-language works237,207