Bump, set, spike...spandex : examining coaches' and athletic directors' interpretations of the Canadian interuniversity sport women's volleyball rule on player uniforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite a gender equity policy and an identical uniform rule for both men’s and women’s Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) volleyball players, every CIS women’s volleyball team wears tight fitting spandex uniforms, while the men’s teams wear looser and longer shorts to play. The dissimilarities between uniforms for the men’s and women’s volleyball teams demonstrate how CIS female volleyball players are governed in inequitable ways that feminize and sexualize the female players. Informed by feminist critical theory this research provides a discussion of the gendered power relations that work as a backdrop to the study of one aspect of organizational culture, namely the uniform rule that has developed in CIS volleyball. Using Martin’s (1992) three perspective approach to organizational culture this study examines the women’s volleyball uniform practice from the perspective of the Canada West, CIS women’s volleyball coaches and athletic directors. The three main themes that emerged from the interview data reveal that volleyball culture, player input and the power of coaches and athletic directors all impact the women’s uniform practices. Additionally, each theme provides support for Martin’s integration, differentiation, and fragmentation perspectives. Most notable are the contradictions, ambiguities and confusion around the spandex uniform as they highlight the complexity of the issue by illustrating how coaches’ and athletic directors’ lack clarity and understanding about the practice and its implications. This study exposes the gendered sub-text that flows through the Canada West Volleyball organization and acts as a jumping-off point for engaging in new dialogue about team uniform practices.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".