Considering (dis)ability and impairment onset within the athletic identities of high performance women paralympic athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The terms "double discrimination" and "double disadvantage" have been used in previous research to describe the sport context for women athletes with impairments. Being a woman and experiencing a disability are often understood as incompatible with the role of athlete. Despite increasing numbers of women competing in high level parasport, there remains a significant research gap in understanding their experiences and how doing so may contribute to greater insights and opportunities to support their involvement in sport. Purpose: The primary purpose of this investigation was to examine the athletic identities of high performance women parasport athletes. Particular attention was paid to the role of disability and impairment onset within the development of these identities and the athletes' journeys into elite parasport. Method: Using qualitative description, 10 current and former Canadian women Paralympic athletes were interviewed in combination with the Athletic Identity Measurement Scale (Brewer et al., 1993). Results: Four themes were captured following a thematic analysis of the data. These included: (a) personal sacrifice, (b) possibilities, (c) control and conflict, and d) perceptions and relevance of disability. Conclusion: The findings highlight the absence of disability in participant's self-perceptions as athletes through their commitment to sport and high performance but its' overwhelming relevance in the perceptions of outsiders. Consideration of the ways in which perceptions of disability and impairment onset impact opportunities for girls and women with impairments to gain entry into parasport, are also discussed.Acknowledgments: Sport Science Association of Alberta
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".