"The same or different? ": Using a critical discourse analysis to explore dominant discourses of coaching parasport athletes over a 20-year time span
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The media is a powerful outlet capable of influencing our thoughts, feelings, and behaviours about a particular phenomenon, including parasport coaches who play an active role in raising awareness and exposure for parasport. The purpose of this study was to examine how newspaper media portrayed dominant discourses surrounding parasport coaches. Data were collected using the LexisNexis Academic database to search for full-text newspaper articles from January 1, 1999 to January 1, 2019. Eighty-three articles were included for review from 66 newspaper sources. We conducted a critical discourse analysis and through an iterative analytical process, we identified two subject positions of how parasport coaches were portrayed. Within the first subject position, the media presented the idea that there were minimal differences in the training, dedication, and perseverance of coaches and athletes with and without impairments. Although this view of we're all the same can be empowering, it also has the potential to dismiss the importance of the impairment for athletes. Comparatively, the second subject position identified considerations for coaches working with athletes with impairments. This perspective acknowledges impairment as a factor that may pose a barrier towards full inclusion in sport, while suggesting practical solutions to enhance their sporting experiences. Taken together, there are two contrasting ideas being presented on how to coach athletes with impairments. Listening to the few messages portrayed from parasport coaches themselves, it is imperative to provide coaches with a voice in the media to raise awareness of the barriers and facilitators involved in parasport progression.Acknowledgments: Funding: Fonds de Recherche du Quebec en Societe et Culture (FRQSC), Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).
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 | 0.025 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".