Masculinity and Sport Revisted: A Review of Literature on Hegemonic Masculinity and Men's Ice Hockey in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ice hockey is particularly significant in Canada as it acts as a primary site of socialization for boys and men. This form of socialization raises questions about masculinity on the public agenda in terms of the problematic nature of hypermasculinity in sport, stereotypical images of athletes, and questions of social responsibility as both men and athletes. These issues are presently relevant as Canada (and perhaps all of North America) finds itself in an era characterized by accounts in mainstream media of competitive athletes’ cavalier lifestyles, hazing, violence, homophobia, drug addictions, and suicides. This review of literature uses secondary research to problematize masculinity in the ice hockey context by presenting the overarching claim that male hockey players are hegemonically masculine individuals. The piece begins by defining Australian sociologist R.W. Connell’s (1987) concept of hegemonic masculinity and situating it in the contemporary academic context. Next, it offers an overview of relevant literature on masculinity and sport along with a concise examination of scholarly work on the relationship between hegemonic masculinity and ice hockey in Canada. It concludes by summarising calls for further research in the literature and by suggesting approaches to future studies in the field.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".