Does gender inequality moderate sex differences in sport across countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although sex differences in preferences for sport are well established, there are competing hypotheses regarding their origins. The Spectator Lek Hypothesis maintains that sex differences in preferences for sport are partly evolved and thus should be universal or near universal, whereas socio-constructivist hypotheses argue that such sex differences are entirely socially constructed and thus should vary as a function of a society's gender inequality. To test these competing hypotheses, cross-national nested data were acquired from the International Social Survey Program (ss = 49,729, ncountries = 34). Non-linear hierarchal Bernoulli modelling was employed to examine if sex differences in sport participation, fandom, and reasons for participating in sport are universal or near universal, and if there is a moderating effect of countries' gender inequality. Our findings indicate that gender inequality is associated with increased sex differences in sport, albeit marginally and only for some sport behaviours. However, even when accounting for the moderating effect of gender inequality, males are more likely to report general sport participation (OR = 4.09, 95% CI = 3.13-5.34), team sport participation (OR = 4.19, 95% CI = 3.13-5.34), watching sport on television (OR = 2.32, 95% CI = 1.69-3.17), to agree that they play sport to compete (OR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.79-2.31), but not to attend sporting events (OR = 1.47, 95% CI = .94-2.31). These results highlight the possible role of countries' gender inequality while supporting the spectator lek hypothesis. Acknowledgments: The authors would also like to thank Mark Eys and Laurene Rehman for helpful comments and criticisms of earlier drafts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".