MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2516940286 · doi:10.1386/csmf.3.2.95_1

The rough riders: An exploration of theatricality, masculinity, identities and voyeurism in Canadian football

2016· article· en· W2516940286 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jorge Sandoval

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Studies in Men’s Fashion · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFandomMasculinityFootballPerformative utteranceQueerSpectacleHegemonic masculinitySociologyAestheticsVoyeurismPerformativityGender studiesArtMedia studiesPsychologyHistoryLawPolitical sciencePsychoanalysisArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article explores the notions of performance and performativity through the activities of the male fan base of the Canadian football team, the Saskatchewan Roughriders (CFL /Regina Saskatchewan). It considers the carnivalization of fandom through the lens of the theatrical event and examines how normative gender identities are simultaneously constructed and reconstructed on the field and in the stands. Saskatchewan’s football team, The Roughriders, has the biggest fan base within the Canadian Football League. Male fans practice orthodox masculinity by cheering the team with cultish fervor fuelled by alcohol, chants and, paradoxically, by costuming their bodies in forms of high camp drag. This action transforms the traditional football field into a spectacle in which inverted forms of gender display and voyeurism form no small part. Green body make-up, wigs, masks, watermelon helmets and fake breasts queer fans’ bodies through performative gestures that temporarily reconstruct genders. Finally, the article considers these actions in relation to the celebration of the hyper-masculinized body of the athletes positioning the football stadium as a highly theatricalized third space in which two representations of masculinity are performed simultaneously.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Studies in Men’s FashionSame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207