Gender performativity during interviews with adolescent boys
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increased use, if not dominance, of interviewing techniques in qualitative research on sport and physical culture demands more focused and critical analyses of the situational factors that may influence the generation of interview data. One of the factors, of course, is the interviewer’s gender as it relates to the gender(s) of the research participants. Previous research investigating the social dynamics of interviewing suggests that gender dynamics mediate the quality, content and detail of responses provided from adult participants. In particular, a noticed gap in the sport and exercise literature is the potential influence of the interviewer’s gender with respect to conducting interviews with children and youth. Drawing from interviews and field work exploring the enjoyment and experience(s) of Health and Physical Education class conducted with elementary school students in Ontario (Canada), this paper explores the relational and performative aspects of gender in the interview space, mediating how boys with multiple body capitals and masculinities shape their narratives in different ways during an interview with a male researcher.
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.
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 | 0.013 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it