Examining the nature and extent of hazing in Canadian interuniversity sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to explore the nature and extent of hazing among Canadian intercollegiate athletes. A total of 358 athletes (163 males, 195 females) between the ages of 18 and 30 completed an online survey. Descriptive analyses revealed that the majority of the athletes reported that they had never been hazed (59%) and never participated in hazing others (75%) while attending their current university. The most frequently reported hazing activities included: (a) wearing clothing that was embarrassing and not part of a uniform (30%); (b) singing or chanting by oneself or with others in a public situation that was unrelated to an event, game, or practice (27%); and (c) attending a skit night or roast where other members were humiliated (17%). Athletes reported that hazing activities primarily occurred off campus (59%) and on weekends (61%). Approximately 20% of the sample believed that their coach was aware of the activities, but was not present while the activities occurred. Athletes indicated that they were more likely to talk with a friend (51%) about their hazing experiences rather than a coach (6%) or university faculty member (1.7%). Finally, athletes reported that their engagement in hazing activities made them feel more part of the team (60%). The findings shed light on the prevalence of hazing activities in interuniversity sport and the importance of creating a safe environment for student-athletes.Acknowledgments: Social Science and Humanities Research Council
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".