MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117291588 · doi:10.1123/ijsc.2.2.146

Generation Y’s Perceptions of Women’s Sport in the Media

2009· article· en· W2117291588 on OpenAlexaff
Katie Lebel, Karen Danylchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sport Communication · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocializationConsumption (sociology)PerceptionPsychologyMedia consumptionSocial psychologyInequalityAtmosphere (unit)Sport managementFocus groupMass mediaAdvertisingSociologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceSocial scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to gain insight into Generation Y’s perceptions of women’s sport in the media. Twenty-four participants were recruited and organized into 4 gender-specific focus groups. Participants identified televised sport as a primary and preferred method of sport consumption. Women’s sports were linked with inaccessibility and perceived as inferior to men’s sport in terms of athletic skill and general atmosphere. An underrepresentation of women’s sport in the media was held responsible for the limited awareness surrounding women’s sport. Societal expectations instilled during early socialization processes and limited female opportunity in sport also emerged as critical barriers. Most participants regarded the inequality in women’s sport with indifference and were satisfied as sport enthusiasts with the opportunities for consumption available in men’s sport. This conservative approach to women’s sport suggests that Generation Y’s perceptions wield noteworthy influence on their sport consumption behaviors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sport CommunicationSame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207