Gender equity for athletes: Rewriting the narrative for this organizational value
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is commonly believed that managers have shared understandings of espoused organizational values. However, some researchers have argued that organizational members, including managers, have multiple, conflicting, or ambiguous interpretations of organizational values that may complicate the process of translating values into practices (Martin, 1992; Meyerson, 1991a; Young, 1989). The purpose of this study was to examine the meanings sport managers associate with the organizational value of gender equity for athletes using an analytic framework developed by Martin (1992, 2001). Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with five administrators in one university athletic department. A document analysis of policies and budgets and observations were additional data sources. The findings revealed that administrators offered multiple meanings of gender equity and that those meanings were underpinned by confusion, contradictions, and silences, supporting the differentiation and fragmentation perspectives proposed by Martin (1992, 2001). By relying on dominant narratives, managers sometimes fail to notice other ways of matching organizational practices with espoused organizational values.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".