Exploring adolescent girls’ experiences of body talk in non‐aesthetic sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Body image concerns may contribute to poor sport experiences and low sport participation in girls. Objectification theory and evidence from studies in non-sport contexts suggests body talk may elicit an environment that fosters negative body image. However, the phenomenon of body talk within adolescent girls sport is not well-understood from an in-depth person-centered perspective. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to explore adolescent girl athletes' experiences of body talk within sport. METHODS: Twenty Canadian girl athletes (ages 14-18 years) enrolled in team-based non-aesthetic sports participated in one semi-structured interview. Using a qualitative description approach, an inductive thematic analysis was used to generate three themes. RESULTS: "Body talk as a performance tactic" highlighted complimentary and negative body talk pertaining to sport performance came from coaches, opposing players, and parents. "Casual conversations and body talk" reflected body talk from teammates and male spectators that was not specific to sport but occurred in the sport context. "Coping with body talk" reflected strategies athletes used to combat negative body talk from teammates, and reflected the athletes' perceptions that negativity towards the body is normative. CONCLUSIONS: Body talk served many purposes within sport; researchers should further explore the diverse motivations and perceived utility of body talk across sport stakeholders. Creating standardized resources and policies to eliminate body talk may foster more positive and supportive sport experiences for girls.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".