Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this essay, Helen Jefferson Lenskyj reflects on how heternormativity and gender identities have been characterized in sport media for more than a century. In light of these issues, Lenskyj reflects on why communication about sport may have particular importance in fueling heternormativity and a climate of homophobia. In reflecting on her journey as a scholar focused on the nexus of sport, gender, and media, Lenskyj notes that researchers have identified homophobia more readily than heterosexism, and lesbians’ experiences have been investigated in greater depth than those of gay men. The body of this essay focuses on trends in research, comments on the common perception that in sport “all the men are straight and all the women are gay,” considers heternormativity as social control, and assesses the potential of “the new muscular woman and the new metrosexual man” in the context of mediated sport. The conclusion focuses on more progressive trends in media treatment of sexuality issues in sport and considers both the standpoint and the key questions for future research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".