Seeking new glory (d)haze: A qualitative examination of adventure-based, team orientation rituals as an alternative to traditional sport hazing for athletes and coaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Upon entry to university, students are commonly exposed to hazing events during Frosh Week, as they pledge to join a fraternity or sorority, move in to their dormitories, and join campus clubs and groups, including marching band and varsity sport teams. As Hoover elucidated in his comprehensive study of NCAA athletes, 80% of that population took part in some form of hazing on their varsity team, of which only 20% were identified as being a “positive” experience. Furthermore, by the time athletes enter university, it is conceivable that up until that point, they will have been involved in no less than five hazing ceremonies. This qualitative study introduced adventure-based alternative orientations that included activities such as rock climbing and canoe tripping to men's and women's collegiate varsity athletic teams. These teams had previously been identified as using traditional hazing ceremonies involving, for example, sexualized games and alcohol. Themes that emerged from the interviews with athletes and coaches focused on the transformative effects of the alternative orientations, facilitating a greater sense of cohesion, diminishing team hierarchies, and shifting power relations, effectively democratizing the event and humanizing first year athletes. Participants also shared ways in which alternative orientations played a role in fostering deeper interpersonal relationships rooted in communication and shared identity which they described as facilitating team success.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".