‘Close, but not always close enough to come out to': a large-scale online qualitative study of interpersonal relationships experienced by LGBTQ + individuals in sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite concerted efforts, LGBTQ + inclusivity is not fostered across all sporting contexts. Interpersonal relationships with teammates and coaches are particularly significant when it comes to cultivating positive and inclusive LGBTQ + experiences within sport. Using online qualitative data collected from 741 LGBTQ + adults, this study examined how relationships with coaches, teammates and sport-related staff impacted sport experiences and participation. Participant responses were independently coded using reflexive thematic analysis. Data were used to develop a new visual model to understand different types of relationships LGBTQ + individuals experience in sport and how this impacted their sport experiences. Exclusive sport relationships were characterised by experiences of discrimination and were found to greatly influence how participants viewed sport and physical activity contexts as adults. Inert or neutral sport relationships were maintained through protective self-distancing techniques. Inclusive relationships with coaches and teammates were primarily based on acceptance and associated with viewing physical activity positively. Identity-concealment strategies and athletic ability were identified as factors that impacted LGBTQ + adults’ relationships within sport. Our overall findings demonstrate how discrimination in the form of overt or subtle sexual and gender prejudice can thwart feelings of relatedness among LGBTQ + athletes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".