So you're a tough guy, eh?: Constructions of identities by competitive male ice hockey players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout sport psychology literature, the relationship between identity and sport has been explored; however, research on how athletes come to develop certain identities has been lacking, particularly in aggressive sports, such as hockey. The proposed study will explore how competitive male ice hockey players construct their identities through sport participation. Framed within a social constructionist paradigm, and guided by narrative theory, this study addresses the intersectionality of multiple identities such as masculinity, race, and social class. Participants will include six to eight players from three competitive hockey teams in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. Unstructured, conversational interviews will take place with each participant, asking them questions pertaining to their experiences in sport, with injury, and as a hockey player. Interpretative thematic analysis will be completed to identify common themes, as well as differences between the narratives. In line with narrative theory, keeping the integrity of the participants' stories will be the focus of data analysis. Based on previous literature, anticipated findings include identities of athletes being shaped by their early sporting experiences, the culture of sport, and idealized masculine values. The goal of the proposed study is to provide insight into the way sociocultural processes are used for forming identities, while also leading a path of new research into identity formation and the impact of sport culture. The results of this study will be important for facilitating a better understanding of how athlete identities are shaped both negatively and positively and their implications for individuals both in and out of sport.Acknowledgments: Kelly D. Harding, PhD; Amanda Schweinbenz, PhD, Jennifer Johnson, PhD
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".