Bibliographic record
Abstract
Female alpine athletes’ constructions of gender and risk are poorly addressed in the academic record. The vast majority of publications focus on the reproductive risks inherent in being in a less oxygenated environment and not on the experiences of female alpinists themselves. For my master’s project, I explored the experiences of female athletes in alpine sport. The primary objective was to gain greater understanding of Canadian female athletes’ constructions of gender and risk in alpine environments and in relation to the larger cultural context. Informed largely by Michel Foucault’s concepts of agency and governmentality, as well as Pirkko Markula’s feminist interpretations of Foucault’s perspectives on the (moving) body, and following the tenets of feminist qualitative research methods, I interviewed women alpine athletes living in and around Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Five participants agreed to complete two one-on-one interviews using go-along or moving interviewing techniques; they also agreed to take part in a guided-group-conversation comprised of all five participants and me. The process of analysis was completed, in part, through participant validation between each interview and thus, participant-driven analysis was integral to this project. Participants constructed gender and risk largely through a comparison of doing what they felt they ought, which usually centred on their careers and families, and what they wanted, which centred on the draw that they felt toward the alpine. Valuable insights were also gained on research methods and (the making of) community.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 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".