Exploring the media portrayal of north american sport culture and identity following the russian state-sponsored doping scandal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the Olympic level, sport has evolved from a competition of athletics to represent significant displays of individual, organizational, and political power. When revelations arose against Russia concerning systematic state-sponsored doping, the integrity of international sport was called into question and countries experienced threats towards their national identity. Since 2014, news coverage of the Russian doping scandal has dominated North American sport media headlines. The media is considered a powerful outlet capable of influencing behaviours, attitudes, and actions through the transmission of ideas, values, and norms. As such, the purpose of our study was to identify dominant discourses surrounding the Russian state-sponsored doping program as presented in the North American media from the Olympic Games in Sochi 2014 to Pyeongchang 2018. We conducted an ethnographic content analysis of 113 newspaper articles to identify how the media perpetuated attitudes and ideas surrounding cultural identity in elite sport. Two main discourses were identified describing: (a) the frustration and disappointment held by North Americans against international sport governing bodies, and (b) the desire to fight for clean sport. Where the former discourse left readers feeling hopeless about the influx of pharmaceutical drugs coupled with the lack of effective doping sanctions in sport, the latter discourse provided feasible suggestions to prevent doping from further contaminating sport integrity. Although a clear-cut solution to the problem was not discussed, we encourage the community to reflect on their own moral stances and form educated opinions, which can be translated into meaningful, responsive action toward a promising solution.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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".