Rules and reform: eligibility, gender differences, and the Olympic Games
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the beginning of the modern Olympic Games, women have struggled to participate as equals. One important aspect of women's struggle for inclusion involves the rules of eligibility to compete in the Olympic Games. This article examines the current status of women in the ‘reformed’ Olympic Movement by considering the number of events in which women participate, the nature or duration of those events, the number of competitive opportunities available to women and the language used by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the International Federations (IFs) to refer to men and women. A content analysis of the eligibility rules of participation found that the Olympic Charter and the rulebooks of eight IFs stipulate differential treatment of women. The article argues that these rules mandate and normalize inequitable treatment, and thus create inequitable opportunities for female athletes. The inequality that these rules perpetuate demonstrates that the IOC's reform process is not yet complete.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it