Communication of sporting body ideals: Experiences of female NCAA Division I college athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study explored female college athletes' experiences of specific others' (i.e., coaches, trainers, teammates, and parents) communication about their female sporting bodies and how they make sense of their bodies in relation to this communication. How they believed specific others in the sport environment should communicate with them about their bodies was also examined. Eight female National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I college athletes from four different sports were recruited using purposive sampling methods. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted, and the five-step process of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (Smith, 2004) as outlined by Groenewald (2004) was used. Participants reported experiences of communication from others about their bodies as both "positive" and "negative." Individualized athlete-centered training, body change recognition, and relationship development were viewed as positive means of communicating about sporting bodies, whereas comparing athletes' bodies, critical comments, and threatening sport participation were perceived as negative. These athletes experienced the sport environment as influencing their perceptions of their sporting bodies in other ways, such as maintaining a healthy "fit" body. Further, the participants described perceived conflicts between sporting body ideals and dominant social ideals of feminine bodies. Practical implications of these results will be discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".