“You’re Not Allowed Body Checking in Women’s Hockey”: Preserving Gendered and Nationalistic Hegemonies in the 2006 Olympic Ice Hockey Tournament
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to focus on how hegemonic nationality, as well as hegemonic masculinity and femininity are expressed in the media commentaries about women’s sport. This study focused specifically on Olympic hockey broadcasts on NBC’s cable affiliates employing freelance journalists during the 2006 Olympics. Textual analyses of five U.S. and Canadian women’s games were conducted. Two hockey commentators of the Olympic Games were also interviewed. Results indicate that, in relationship to men, the women’s game is viewed as less physical. In regards to nationality, the U.S. women are viewed as legitimate athletes for embracing hockey and not traditional feminine sports such as figure skating. Canadian women are viewed as legitimate for initially having participated in female versions of hockey such as ringette before playing hockey. The U.S. women are described as having strength and power as well as being fit and still feminine, while their Canadian counterparts are mostly described by physical size.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".