A Good Fight: How Indigenous Women Approach Boxing as a Mechanism for Social Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the experiences of select Indigenous female boxers from Canada and the United States to explore and appreciate the diverse meanings they attach to amateur and professional boxing and to write these athletes into history by constructing short case studies of fighters active from the 1970s through the 2010s. We augment each fighter’s story with context from scholarly and secondary source materials, such as newspapers, to round out each woman’s story and to illustrate the multiple overlapping conditions that shaped their boxing experiences. We embrace the work of van Ingen on the importance of understanding female boxers at the intersection of race and gender. In doing so, our work emphasizes the ideological foundations embedded in narratives, so that each narrative presents a certain point of view that results in real practical effects, whether it be supporting White liberal feminism or Indigenous self-determination. Following van Ingen, this article views all writing, whether by journalists or professional historians, as ideological acts, capable of exalting select athletes while marginalizing others.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".