MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955081907

The perspective of Ontario girls' youth hockey as an alternative sport model

2012· article· en· W2955081907 on OpenAlexaffabout
Corliss Bean, Tanya Forneris, Michael A. Robidoux

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIce hockeySeriousnessField hockeyAthletesMainstreamPerspective (graphical)HegemonyHegemonic masculinitySocial psychologyPsychologyGender studiesPolitical scienceSociologyFootballPoliticsMasculinityLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ice hockey is one of the most played sports by youth in Canada and over the past 20 years female participation rates have increased by nearly 900% (Hockey Canada, 2005; 2009). However, despite female involvement in the sport, much controversy still remains for women crossing the gender line of 'malestream' hockey (Hall, 1996). The dominant, malestream model of sport has largely ignored the role of women in sport creating an element of marginalization (Scraton and Flintoff, 2002). As a result, there is a lack of research on the topic of female youth hockey. In response, the purpose of this research was to utilize a case study to understand the dynamics of female youth hockey. Results revealed that female youth hockey may indeed be an environment that provides a unique experience for players. Four overarching themes emerged: 1) rule differences; 2) seriousness; 3) positive parental support; and 4) emphasis on team play and social relationships. From this, it is apparent that these players participate in sport outside of the mainstream hegemonic sport environment (Kane, 1995). This egalitarian approach has led to marginalization of female hockey as the environment does not conform to the dominant sport ethic; however, results suggest that this marginalization may be creating a reverse effect: positive discrimination (Hargreaves, 1990). The environment created is beneficial for the female youth athletes, as they are reaping the benefits of an inferiorized sport model.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0240.012
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207