Sketching the Identity Negotiations of Male Athletes and their Coaches: A Case Study of a CIS Men’s Basketball Team
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than simply passive members of a hard masculine cult, male athletes and their coaches take up complex and contradictory identities within the larger athletic structures in which they operate. In this study, I explore the relations of power shaping identity and subjectivity for male athletes and their coaches. Interviews were conducted with eight key informants, six student-athletes and two coaches, of a Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) men’s basketball team and focused on sketching their experiences, perceptions, and performances of masculinities in the sport arena. The detailed stories shared by the two coaches led me to focus two analysis chapters on their narratives. My third analysis chapter broadens to include the narratives told by the larger group of participants. Drawing on the work of Foucault and feminist post-structuralist analysis, I problematize the ethical subjectivities of coaches and players and consider the implications of these findings for both critical sport researchers and anti-violence activists.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".