Dodgeball: Inadvertently teaching oppression in physical and health education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though students can learn a great deal about ethics as they play sport, the authors of this article ask what, exactly, they learn from playing dodgeball. As they look beyond the usual arguments offered for and against the teaching of the game, they view it through three ethical lenses: the ethic of care, the ethic of anti-oppressive education, and the ethics of virtue. They conclude that in terms of modelling, confirming, and practising caring behaviours, or offering opportunities to discuss and process what might be considered fair, dodgeball can be considered miseducative. They further argue that the hidden curriculum of dodgeball reinforces the five faces of oppression defined by the feminist theorist Iris Young as marginalization, powerlessness, and the helplessness of those perceived as weaker individuals through the exercise of violence and dominance by those who are considered more powerful. They conclude that the playing of dodgeball habituates the practice of aggression and fails to contribute positively to an ethical education.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it