Stories From Mother Runners: A Case Study and Narrative Analysis of Facilitators for Competitive Running
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the focus on motherhood and sport participation in recent years, the motherhood and recreational sport participation nexus is not well understood. Using an instrumental case study, we explored running facilitators for competitive recreational mother runners to advance research using a novel theory (i.e., narrative inquiry). We used a dialogical narrative analysis to identify a key theme of “good mother runners: negotiating freedom and constraint.” Findings are presented using a storyteller approach in the form of three portrait characters who each tell a story of facilitators grounded in a “relational narrative” that provided freedom to run in the context of good motherhood. The features of the relational narrative are shown in three nonfiction vignettes: Susan’s story, “Running is what we do”; Tracy’s story, “Running isn’t just for me, it’s for them”; and Kay’s story, “Just go with it.” Interpretive reflections of the stories using narrative theory are offered. We conclude with practical recommendations and future research directions for mothers’ competitive running participation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".