It is okay to play as long as you wear lingerie (or skimpy bikinis)<i>:</i>a moral evaluation of the Lingerie Football League and its rebranding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Lingerie Football League, now referred to as the Legends Football League (LFL), is morally problematic. The LFL is an all-woman contact football league that originated from a 2004 pay-per-view event during the 2004 Super Bowl's half-time. In 2013, the LFL rebranded the league by modifying the name and uniform requirements. Previously, players wore lingerie-style of uniforms, but now compete in ‘performance wear’. However, the new uniforms involve skimpy bikinis. This paper questions the ethical and moral foundations of the LFL. As women strive for opportunities in sport, the LFL creates an unrealistic and sexist portrayal of women in sport that causes more harm than good. Drawing on some of the common arguments used in the doping and sociocultural-sport literature to ban acts, practices and behaviours in sport, I conclude that the LFL is problematic because the league promotes unfairness and harm, and contradicts the spirit of sport principle.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".