Body checking exposed: A qualitative look at the role of body checking in youth hockey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In sport, including hockey, overly aggressive behaviours have been excused because they occur within a contact sport (Eitzen, 2006). Through experience and reinforcement as their participation in sport increases, young athletes learn to integrate aggression into their style of play (Loughead & Leith, 2001). Players' toughness and willingness to pay the price are often expected and praised within the hockey world (Theberge, 1997). Although these unwritten rules are not formulated into an explicit code that can be read from start to finish, they are still part of an informal set of understandings that are used not only by players but also often appear to be promoted and emphasized by coaches and parents. The purpose of this paper is to discuss how parents and players deal with prevailing pressures of integrating and accepting body checking in competitive youth hockey. More specifically, the paper presents findings from an in-depth case study of one Peewee AA (11-12 years old) boys' hockey team in which the perceptions of parents and players in relation to body checking are explored. While Hockey Canada(2010) states that when correctly taught, body checking can enhance a player's enjoyment of the game, the findings of this study are inconsistent with the aforementioned statement. Despite players' apprehensions, body checking was encouraged for what it explicitly symbolizes in terms of portraying desired competitive character, winning hockey games, as well as characterizing young players' masculinity. Clearly, body checking was one symbol that inferred various meanings, depending on the situation, the audience, as well as the purpose. Acknowledgments: Dr. Janice Ahola-Sidaway, Thesis Supervisor
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 | 0.005 | 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".