The female ‘apologetic’ behaviour within Canadian women’s rugby: athlete perceptions and media influences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Bordo (1993) explains femininity as a socially constructed concept that defines how women should look and act and what they should value. Although there may be multiple acceptable femininities with regard to one’s situational context (culture, location, time period, race, class, sexual orientation, etc.) (Chow 1999), Lenskyj (1994) argues that there is one correct version of femininity, which is termed hegemonic femininity. This femininity has been defined by the white, heterosexual, middle-to-high-class cohort of women (Ussher 1997) and includes traits such as submissiveness, dependency, concern over physical appearance and emotional ability (Broverman et al. 1970). It is hegemonic femininity that Butler (1990) argues womenmust perform to be considered real women and avoid the consequences of not doing so. Kane and Greendorfer (1994) state that despite the increased media coverage of sportswomen post-Title IX, the type of coverage still works to enforce this hegemonic version of heterosexual femininity, which reinforces the gender hierarchy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".