Critical Investigation of Mediated Representations of Sport-Related Pain and Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Academic literature has consistently demonstrated that athletes are socialized to accept a culture of risk, which is thought to be inherent within sport. In accepting this culture of risk, sport-related pain and injuries are normalized. This normalization is reinforced by the media through the glorification of (primarily) male athletes who play through their pain in (largely) contact sports. The purpose of this study was to investigate how CBC Sports Weekend constructed sport-related pain and injury across a variety of sports. Twenty broadcasts that aired from August – December 2019 were selected and subjected to thematic analysis. The results indicated a paradoxical representation of sport-related pain and injury. CBC Sports Weekend reinforced a culture of risk and rewarded athletes for taking (successful) risks and toughing it out through injuries, across a wide range of sports. At the same time, broadcasters showed concern for athletes’ health and well-being following a fall, crash or injury. Importantly, these paradoxical narratives demonstrated an improvement in how sport-related pain and injury is portrayed, augmenting more recent academic literature that suggests sport-related pain and injury media narratives are shifting towards prioritizing health.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".