MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166097920 · doi:10.32316/hse/rhe.v15i1.474

Women’s Agency and the Development of Women’s IntercollegiateAthletics, 1961-2001

2003· article· en· W2166097920 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Patrick J. Harrigan

Bibliographic record

VenueHistorical Studies in Education / Revue d histoire de l éducation · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)AutonomyRepresentation (politics)Gender studiesAthletesCommercializationCompetition (biology)Political scienceEliteUnintended consequencesSociologyPublic relationsSocial scienceMedicinePoliticsLawPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autonomous women’s athletics had a strong foundation, especially in central Canada, from the 1920s. The expansion of women’s programs from the 1960s on was due primarily to the agency of university women athletes overcoming institutional and cultural indifference. A national intercollegiate organization for women was established in 1969 to encourage women’s sports and merged with the men’s organization in 1978. The immediate result of the union was a decline in women’s autonomy and representation, but women students’ athletic participation rates steadily increased. Women's representation within the CIAU (now CIS) rose dramatically in the 1990s with pressures for gender equality. Raising the profile of women’s sports, however, has had the unintended consequence of subsuming autonomy and the sense of a distinctive mission within a male model of elite competition and commercialization.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.359
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0130.009
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistorical Studies in Education / Revue d histoire de l éducationSame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207