One of these is not like the other: The retrospective experiences of girl athletes playing on boys’ sports teams during adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescent sport is predominately organised by single-sex sport environments, where girls and boys compete separately. Enhancing opportunities for all youth to compete together may be important for providing broad sport opportunities for girls in sport, reframing preconceptions about the inferiority of girls’ athleticism, and for situating boys and girls within mutually respectful relationships. Yet, limited research has explored girls’ experiences of competing on boys’ sports teams. The current qualitative study explored young adult women’s retrospective experiences of playing on a boys’ sports team as an adolescent. Eleven women (Mage = 20 years) who had played on a boys’ sports team during adolescence participated in individual semi-structured interviews. Using reflexive thematic analysis, three overarching themes were generated including (1) the culture of boys’ dominance and superiority in sport, (2) girls are positioned as the ‘other’, and (3) strategies to navigate the boys’ sport environment. Overall, the women reflected on the boys’ sport environment as superior regarding its opportunity for skill development and competition. However, they also described having to navigate tensions and problematic assumptions of girls’ inferiority in sport that limited their inclusion in the boys’ sport environment as an adolescent. The results highlight the complexity of navigating sex and gender in sport, and unique challenges associated with adolescent girls competing on boys’ sports teams. Researchers and policymakers should continue to understand and widely implement strategies for promoting positive sport environments to support adolescent girls and boys in competing together on sports teams.
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 | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".