MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980896239

Athletic Role Model Representation in Nike's 2019 Black History Month Advertising

2019· article· en· W2980896239 on OpenAlexaff
David Ilkiw

Bibliographic record

VenueStudent Research Proceedings · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNikeAdvertisingAthletesPoliticsRepresentation (politics)SociologyPolitical scienceLawBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every year Nike releases a series of products and advertisements for Black History Month (BHM). In 2019 nine commercials were released. Each commercial depicts a Black athletic role model. This study is concerned with how Black athletic role models are framed in Nike’s BHM commercials and the implications of those frames. In comparison to the vast majority of corporations, Nike is one of the few to actively support BHM. Because these commercials are one of the only forms of media that incorporates BHM to the public, it is important to understand what themes are present within them. The goal of this study was to examine the stories that these athletes communicate about blackness and leadership responsibilities. The findings showed that athletic role models described a complex relationship with athletics. Athletics served as both an escape from social realities and a means to change them. Additionally, sports dominated discussions about community engagement. Other channels of societal change such as academia and politics were absent from discussion. As a result, Nike’s BHM commercials frame a narrow experience of Black Americans.   Faculty Mentor: Kalyani Thurairajah Department: Sociology

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)0.002
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.323 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudent Research ProceedingsSame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207