The Best of the Best Discourse on Health: Poetic Insights on How Professional Sport Socializes a Family of Men Into Hegemonic Masculinity and Physical Inactivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines how 4 men from the same family, representing different generations, construct health from their perceptions of professional athletes. Many men are socialized and participate in sport discourses that promote certain truths about being a man that often have detrimental effects to their health. The capacity of research to inform men's construction of health is limited. In an attempt to engage male participants within the research process and cause a form of catalytic validity, transcripts from interviews with the men were analyzed, and thematic findings were represented in a poetic form and shared with the participants for discussion and refinement. The findings revealed how the male participants reiterated messages that the media promotes, such as the importance of physical and mental strength for a man. More significantly, the men became aware that they assumed a narrow definition of health portrayed by professional athletics that perpetuated a hegemonic masculinity. Reflections on changes in the men's lifestyle choices after engaging in the research process are offered in the conclusion.
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 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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".