Sport, Sexuality, and the Production of (Resistant) Bodies: De-/Re-Constructing the Meanings of Gay Male Marathon Corporeality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Placing the sporting body and Michel Foucault’s technologies of power and of the self at the center of our research inquiry, this article explores the ways in which 12 Canadian gay male marathoners discursively construct their bodies within and beyond the marathon context. Thematic analysis of the research materials (gathered through guided conversations, written stories, and the first author’s research journal) revealed four main themes: self-governed bodily practices, body modification, the marathoning body as resistant to dominant representations of male corporeality in gay culture, and transformative potential. Following Foucault, materials were further submitted to discourse analysis through which we uncovered the appropriation of and resistance to dominant discourses. This analysis suggested the subjects’ discursive constructions as “hybrid” creations located both within, and sometimes in contest to, dominant discourses of physical activity, running, and the male body in gay culture. Our research explores the experiences of gay male athletes through a sociological lens that differs from the present literature, which has largely drawn on hegemony theory. It also adds new insights into distance running as a social phenomenon.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".