MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154137493 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.10677

17. Covert Feminism: Female Activists on the Field of Play

2018· article· en· W3154137493 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Clare Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeminismCovertGender studiesAthletesPerspective (graphical)Feminist movementDocumentationConsciousnessSociologyPolitical sciencePsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because of feminist activism, what were once considered incompatible entities, women and sport, have come to be united within the social fabric of the 21st century. Recent generations of women are the first to experience sport as a commonplace reality that is largely taken for granted. After initial exclusion from the first and second wave feminist agendas, many activists now recognize sport as a vehicle for the advancement of women. The female athlete has been described by some academics as a type of “stealth feminist” who can support key feminist causes without arousing a knee-jerk social response. Although female sport participation and the status of female athletes have improved significantly, the impact this has had in the lived experience of women remains to be understood. This research project seeks to conduct focus groups with female athletes to better understand their relationship with the topic of feminism and to explore the impact sport participation has had within their lives. Deeper comprehension and documentation of sport from the perspective of female participants may not only serve to help guide sport policy and programing, but may also serve to foster a united, feminist consciousness that is capable of expanding the possibilities for female athletes and for women more broadly.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.283 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207