MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024138593 · doi:10.1080/17430437.2013.790895

The Vancouver ‘big six’ gender-framed: NBC's prime-time coverage of the 2010 Vancouver Olympics

2013· article· en· W2024138593 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James R. Angelini, Andrew C. Billings, Paul J. MacArthur

Bibliographic record

VenueSport in Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrime timeAlpine skiingSpeed skatingAthletesOperationalizationPrime ministerAdvertisingPsychologyApplied psychologyGeographyPolitical scienceEngineeringSimulationPhysical geographyPoliticsMedicineLawPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study represents the first attempt to content-analyse on-air commentary surrounding the six ‘major’ Winter Olympic sports, operationalized as any event receiving at least three hours of aggregate prime-time coverage on the NBC broadcast network. Analysis of all 64 hours of NBC's prime-time coverage of the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Winter Games revealed 26 significantly different dialogue trends between male and female athletes. Gendered differences in the attribution of athletic success and failure were found in figure skating, alpine skiing and short-track speed skating, but not in bobsledding, freestyle skiing and snowboarding. Gendered differences in personality/physicality descriptors were found in alpine skiing, bobsled, figure skating, freestyle skiing and snowboarding, but not in short-track speed skating. Overall, figure skating generated the most gendered differences in commentary, while snowboarding and freestyle skiing had the fewest differences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSport in SocietySame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207