“Our ladies” versus “our dominators”: Gender differences and nationalist discourse in the Polish Olympic coverage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The article presents differences in describing sportspeople during the last four Olympic Games in terms of gender and nationality in Polish newspapers. The fundamental goal of the research was to perform the quantitative and qualitative comparison of press materials from four Olympics (Vancouver 2010, London 2012, Sochi 2014, Rio de Janeiro 2016). The content analysis was used for the quantitative part of the study and critical discourse analysis of two newspapers (the broadsheet and tabloid) in Poland for qualitative part. 712 media articles were analyzed. Our analysis has revealed significant underrepresentation of women and also differences in the description of rival competitors as well as overrepresentation of articles about Polish representatives during the Olympics. Those articles dwelt on the issue of nationality much more often and were more emotionally charged. Also, to a great extent, the performance of non-Polish women athletes was left unconsidered. The authors therefore indicate the validity of combining gender analysis and nationality in the context of the Olympic Games.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".