Bibliographic record
Abstract
The work of Michel Foucault has had a considerable impact on a wide range of academic disciplines but is yet to infiltrate the field of sport psychology. Foucault's work offers rich reward to sport psychology because his primary interest was how human beings acquired knowledge of themselves and their practices. One Foucauldian concept that has considerable potential to contribute to our understanding of sport performance is that of 'docility'. Foucault's (1995) Technologies of Discipline is a theoretical framework that showed how the meticulous organization involved in many of modern societies institutions such as prisons, schools, or the workplace can result in human docility. This is problematic because it may produce behaviours – compliance, apathy, confusion—that make humans more not less predictable. After outlining this framework we illustrate how these organizational structures have saturated modern sporting practices. Specifically, the combination of the organization of time, space and movement are techniques that Foucault (1995, p. 139) referred to as small acts of cunning. We argue that they produce a host of smaller, less visible and taken-for-granted practices that instill a discipline on athletic bodies that may ultimately undermine athlete performance. Sport psychology practitioners may gain better results with athletes through a greater awareness of how modern sporting practices – designed with efficiency in mind, may actually hinder outstanding individual performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".