Glitter and Guts: Narrative Portrayal of Sportswomen’s Experiences on a Coached Masters Team
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative investigation explored the lived meaningful experiences of adult women in a coached Masters synchronized ice-skating team and the role of the coach in these experiences. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews with 11 team members (mean age = 39) and their 32 year-old female coach, over multiple time points in their season. Observational field notes were taken during training, competition, and social engagements. Story analyst methods were used for data collection and analysis, to then present the results in the form of realist tales (Smith & Sparkes, 2009a; 2009b) about the novelties of identifying with a women’s Masters team. Stories respectively highlighted (1) how notions of team included compliance to social norms despite individual differences, (2) women’s unique empowerment through sport, sisterhood, and what that meant for their respective identities, and (3) the value of surrounding support networks and social negotiations. Intertwined within these three stories was a fourth narrative characterizing the coach’s involvement in the culture, interactions, and climate of the team. The coach had implicit and explicit roles, was integrated into the team, and shared power which enhanced athletes’ experiences. This study points toward the meaningfulness of sport by illustrating the inherent social dimensions and connectedness within a team sport for adult women.
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) | 0.002 | 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".