‘I’d like to think I’m a good referee’: discourses of ability and the subjectivity of the female soccer referee in Ontario (Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Female officials are side-lined within the soccer community through gendered relations of power, even in Canada, where women remain outnumbered as referees and in other leadership positions despite remarkable growth in the women’s game since the 1980s and its heightened respect and standing. Drawing upon Foucault’s concepts of discourse and subject, we explored the experience of female referees who had persevered in their role for 2 years or more within the male-dominated ranks of referees and had been subjected to, and the subject of, discourses of ability that constructed their (perceived lack of) skill and competence as unbiased arbitrators on the soccer field. In making sense of their referee subjectivity, they constructed stories of ability according to (1) first experiences, (2) skill recognition and validation, (3) being ‘a good referee’, and (4) proving oneself, while simultaneously engaging with discourses of gender, albeit sparingly and not always purposefully.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.056 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".