The “Anti-Jock” Movement: Reconsidering Youth Resistance, Masculinity, and Sport Culture in the Age of the Internet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores issues relevant to youth, masculinity, Internet, and sport studies through a case study of the “anti-jock” (cyber)movement. The anti-jock movement is group of self-described “marginalized youth” who, through the production and consumption of anti-jock Websites, express dissatisfaction with and anger toward institutions that uncritically adulate hyper-masculine/high-contact sport culture and the athletes who are part of this culture (i.e., the “jocks"). Through these Websites, strategies of resistance against the “pro-jock” establishment are offered. An analysis of these sites acts as a departure point for considering how existing approaches to understanding youth cultural activity might be integrated with strands of new social movement theory to better account for more advanced forms of youth opposition/activism that have emerged following (and as a partial result of) the mass adoption of Internet-based communication. Also included is a discussion of the potential for anti-jock Websites specifically, and youth produced alternative-media generally, to empower youth and/or alter the oppressive forces that impact various “outsider” youth groups. The paper concludes with suggestions for future work that would extend and evaluate the ideas proposed here.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".