MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103875629 · doi:10.1080/17430437.2013.779856

Athletic, but ambivalent, and in brief: Canadian newspaper coverage of sledge hockey prior to Vancouver 2010

2013· article· en· W2103875629 on OpenAlexaffabout
Fred Mason

Bibliographic record

VenueSport in Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperIce hockeyAthletesMainstreamAmbivalenceMedia coverageAdvertisingPolitical scienceMedia studiesSociologyPsychologySocial psychologyLawMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analyses the media coverage of sledge hockey in Canadian newspapers prior to the Vancouver Paralympics. Articles on sledge hockey over a period of 10 years were identified through a search of a full-text newspaper database. Quantitatively, there was little coverage (562 articles over the time frame), and very few had depth (63). The overall thematic structure of sledge hockey coverage could be characterized as ‘athletic, yet ambivalent’. The physicality of the game and players' athleticism were highlighted, but there was a heavy explanatory frame, meaning the differences from ‘mainstream’ hockey were stressed. Further, there was some evidence of the supercrip discourse, with attendant aspects of focusing on the disability and the athlete's struggle against it, rather than focusing on the sporting elements. Considering this, the coverage of sledge hockey at the Vancouver 2010 Paralympics can really be considered a precedent in certain ways.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.014
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSport in SocietySame topicInclusion and Disability in Education and SportFrench-language works237,207