‘French football needs more women like Adriana’? Examining the media coverage of France’s women’s national football team for the 2011 World Cup and the 2012 Olympic Games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As reflected by the London 2012 Summer Olympic Games, global women’s participation in sports seems to currently be at its highest levels ever. However, equality between men and women has not yet been reached when one examines how men and women involved in sports are represented in the media. Sportswomen have appeared to be typically portrayed as feminine individuals and not systematically referred to as ‘just athletes’. France’s women’s national football (soccer) team was followed during the 2011 World Cup and the 2012 Olympic Games through two different French websites: the official website of the French football federation and a website devoted to sports news. Using a feminist Foucauldian discourse analysis, this paper presents how these important websites for the media coverage of football in France portrayed the women’s national team and its players during two major international competitions, oscillating between gendered individuals and ‘real’ or legitimate athletes. It also highlights how cultural context and nationalism contributed to such (re)presentations of Team France.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".