Body shaming and associated practices as abuse: athlete entourage as perpetrators of abuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 2016 International Olympic Committee Consensus Statement on harassment and abuse, it was outlined that psychological abuse in sport research has been heavily focused on the coach–athlete relationship resulting in a lack of research on other members of the athletes’ support system such as their ‘entourage.’ Researchers of abuse have further noted that psychological abuse remains relatively underexplored in comparison to other types of athlete abuses (e.g. sexual abuse). As psychological abuse is one of the most common types of abuse occurring in sporting contexts, it has been flagged as an urgent safeguarding concern. Psychological abuse can be enacted in different ways with many associated behaviours. The present study explored one under-researched issue shown to be entrenched in sport culture – ‘body shaming’ – and how it constitutes psychological abuse. We also focused on the role of the athlete entourage (i.e. people associated with the athlete) in relation to psychological abuse through the body shaming of athletes. Using thematic analysis, three female athletes’ stories showed how they were subjected to psychological abuse from members of their entourage when their bodies failed to meet socio-cultural expectations (i.e. too fat, not ‘slim to win’). While it was not the central focus of our research, the athletes also explained how they were subjected to physical abuse and physical neglect from entourage members when they were perceived to be overweight or too fat. The athlete entourage members found to be perpetrators of abuse and physical neglect included the coach, the parent, the partner, and the manager. This research provides novel insight into how abuse is circulating through sporting contexts, and in so doing, generates knowledge for prevention and intervention initiatives in 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".