"Women play sports (just not as well)": Canadian newspapers' coverage of men's and women's sports at the 1999 Pan-American Games.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined English language Canadian newspapers' coverage of the 1999 Pan-American Games that were held in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Using a methodology that borrowed from the Ricoeurian approach to hermeneutics, a comparison between the coverage of men's and women's sports in five newspapers was made. The study focused on emergent themes in the coverage of men's and women's sports, as well as the identification of descriptors used for men and women athletes. A structural analysis of the text was also made, which included a comparison on the percentage of articles, the percentage of headlines, the percentage of photographs, and the estimated size of articles and photographs. Photographs were also considered a part of the text, and were analyzed in terms of both content and context. Structural results are that women received almost equitable coverage, especially when considered in light of participation rates at the Games. Themes and descriptors of both men and women focused on such things as physicality, emotionality, personality issues, and family life. However, there were differences within the categories of themes that created an image of women athletes who were less experienced and successful in sport, and more emotional than men. Male athletes, by comparison, were presented as more violent, more experienced, and able to be successful in other masculine roles. There was evidence of practices such as ambivalence, infantilization and sexualization towards the women athletes. In conclusion, the study indicate that while women are getting more coverage than ever before, many media practices that marginalize women in sport and set sport off as a male preserve still occur, only they have become more subtle.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".