Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tattooing the body, a traditionally masculine and, in some interpretations, deviant practice is increasingly being adopted by women. Contemporary boundaries of acceptable feminine presentation are changing to accept a body that is somewhat more masculine, including tone and muscle. However, for many women athletes strict conformity to feminine standards of presentation is often necessary to avoid the negative consequences of a collective public gaze which tends to judge her more on her outward appearance than on her athletic abilities. Physical attributes of the woman athlete often transgress the hazy dividing line between feminine and masculine and prompt frequent challenges to the femininity and sexuality of a woman athlete. How then might women athletes negotiate the shifting signifiers of having a tattoo within their self-surveillance of feminine presentation? Two hundred forty-five university-aged Canadian women athletes were surveyed to gain insight regarding their practices and interpretations of permanent and temporary tattooing. Results showed that a significantly smaller number of subjects had permanent tattoos than might be expected in a university population; however a majority utilized temporary tattoos in game situations as a motivating factor for their team. For this sample population, the desire for tattooing the body came as an indicator of achieving a significant sporting accomplishment such as making an Olympic team or winning a national championship.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".