"It's a reciprocal relationship...not a charity relationship: " An inquiry into the process of co-creating a story regarding young Indigenous women's sport body image
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous women have a complex relationship to body image due to conflicting body ideals between Indigenous and Western cultures; however, little is known about young Indigenous women’s perceptions of their bodies in sport. Upon receiving IRB approval, this project began as a qualitative description and evolved into the co-creation of a story or narrative about a young Indigenous woman boxer. The current study is a narrative inquiry into co-creating a narrative and our process of responsiveness. Narratives involve the use of story to create meanings. Referencing the narrative analysis works of Smith and Sparkes (e.g., 2006; 2009a; 2009b) and Anishinaabeg story-telling methodologies (Doerfler, Sinclair, & Stark, 2013), our study purpose was to inquire into the process of co-creating a space for story-telling research and to inform sport body image research methodologies with Indigenous Peoples. Phase one involved approximately 12-hours of iterative discussions to co-create the story. Phase two involved approximately 9-hours of recorded and transcribed co-reflection and discussion about the development of the project and story. The following tensions emerged: (1) Feelings of responsibility, (2) Representation and relevance, (3) Dynamic collaboration, (4) Integrating diverse knowledges, and (5) Story-telling as a research medium. This inquiry identifies considerations for conducting research with Indigenous Peoples that accounts for Indigenous means of knowledge production and exchange. The findings also inform future approaches to sport body image research with Indigenous Peoples by articulating how creating a safe space for story-telling can produce mutually-relevant knowledge regarding the interrelatedness of race, culture, and sport body image.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".