MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W248840946 · doi:10.1123/ijsc.1.1.78

Champions, a Celebrity Crossover, and a Capitulator: The Construction of Gender in Broadsheet Newspapers’ Narratives About Selected Competitors at Wimbledon

2008· article· en· W248840946 on OpenAlexaffabout
John Vincent, Jane Crossman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sport Communication · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperNarrativeNationalityGender studiesIdeologyGlobePower (physics)SociologyPeriod (music)BroadsideMedia studiesPolitical sciencePsychologyPoliticsAestheticsArtLawLiteratureImmigration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study compared the narratives of 3 broadsheet newspapers of selected female and male tennis players competing in the Wimbledon Championships. From Canada, The Globe and Mail; from Great Britain, The Times; and from the United States, The New York Times were examined. Dominant narratives were identified from 161 articles taken from 44 newspaper editions during the 16-day period coinciding with the Wimbledon Championships fortnight. Drawing on Connell’s (1987, 1993, 2005) theory of gender power relations, textual analysis was used to examine the gendered narratives and, where it was applicable, how the gendered narratives intersected with race, age, and nationality. The results revealed that although the gendered narratives were at times complex and contradictory, they were generally consistent with dominant cultural patriarchal ideology and served to reiterate and legitimize the gender order.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations35
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sport CommunicationSame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207