MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034047192 · doi:10.1123/jsm.2019-0395

Building Inclusive Communities in Youth Sport for Lesbian-Parented Families

2020· article· en· W3034047192 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dawn E. Trussell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sport Management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLesbianNegotiationThematic analysisSexual orientationSociologySocial psychologySense of communitySexual minorityGender studiesContext (archaeology)PsychologyPublic relationsQualitative researchPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This interpretative study examines the complexities of lesbian parents’ experiences in organized youth sport programs. Specifically, it seeks to understand youth sport as a potential site for social change that facilitates a sense of inclusive community for diverse family structures. Using thematic analysis, the author examines perspectives of nine participants from Australia, Canada, and the United States. Emphasis is placed on how the lesbian parents (a) negotiate heightened visibility, sexual stigma, and parental judgment; (b) foster social relationships through participation, volunteerism, and positive role models; and (c) create shared understanding toward building an inclusive sport culture. The findings call attention to the importance of intentional and unintentional acts (by families as well as sport organizations) that create a sense of community and an inclusive organizational culture. The connection of lesbian parents’ experiences to broader concepts, such as sexual stigma and transformative services, are also examined within the context of youth sport.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sport ManagementSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207