The enjoyment of sanctioned aggression in rugby: The experience of a pioneering female Canadian team captain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present qualitative case study was to examine the motivational experiences of a Canadian pioneering female rugby player with a particular focus on her insider experiences of sanctioned and unsanctioned aggression in rugby. Reversal theory was the theoretical framework that guided the study. A retrospective semi-structured interview was used. The findings indicated that her two primary motives for playing rugby were the enjoyment of physical contact (sanctioned aggression) and being a serious, physically fit, elite athlete playing rugby for the Canadian national team. In her interview statements, the participant recounted incidents where she was the recipient of illegal acts of unsanctioned aggression by opponents in international games. Also, as the perpetrator of two minor acts of unsanctioned anger aggression incited by opponents, the participant experienced unpleasant psychological responses. The results confirm the importance of sanctioned aggression in the motivation of a female rugby player and support reversal theory concepts and findings from previous research on different types of aggression in male team contact sports. As an important new case study, the findings add to the very limited previous published research on psychological aspects of women’s participation in rugby. The findings also have cautious relevance to understanding the role that physical contact and sanctioned play aggression may have in other women’s motivation for playing rugby. Suggestions are made for future qualitative research on aggression in women’s rugby with larger samples.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".