MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915053605

In and Out: Exploring Inclusion and Alienation within the Sport Experiences of Hijabi Athletes in Ontario

2018· article· en· W2915053605 on OpenAlexaffabout
Asma Khalil, Katherine A. Tamminen

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlienationInclusion (mineral)Thematic analysisIslamEthnic groupAthletesIdentity (music)Gender studiesNegotiationPsychologySociology of sportImmigrationQualitative researchSocial psychologySociologyPolitical scienceMedicineSocial scienceGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Western sport environments may create challenges for young Muslim women who choose to participate while adhering to their Islamic values and principles. In this way, participation in sport may serve to exclude young Muslim women when cultural and religious needs are not met. The purpose of this study was to explore how young Muslim women who wear the hijab experience inclusion or alienation due to their involvement in sport in Ontario. Data collection with seven Hijabi athletes consisted of semi-structured interviews and audio-diaries recorded over a one-month period to examine identity negotiation, social interactions with non-Muslim teammates and coaches, and the influence of broader discourses on the sport experiences of young Muslim women. Results pertained to solidarity as well as Islamophobic interactions with teammates, surveillance due to hypervisibility of the hijab, and behaviour modification. This research highlights the heterogeneity of Muslim women in Ontario and how they navigate sport experiences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)Same topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207