MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367678360 · doi:10.1177/10126902231172922

‘I keep forgetting them’: Lacrosse, indigenous women and girls and reconciliation in Canada

2023· article· en· W4367678360 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Avery Holmes, Audrey R. Giles, Lyndsay Hayhurst

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review for the Sociology of Sport · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsForgettingIndigenousGender studiesGender relationsPolitical scienceSociologyPsychologyCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) released its list of Calls to Action (CTA) in 2015, and five Calls were directly related to reconciliation and sport. Within these five sport-related CTA, there was no specific reference to gender. Lacrosse, as an Indigenous cultural practice that has been culturally appropriated by white settlers, is a complex site to investigate how the TRC's CTA is (or are not) being implemented and the ways in which these efforts are gendered. In this paper, we examined how staff at Canadian lacrosse organizations address the CTA and Indigenous women's and girls' participation in lacrosse. Through the use of Indigenous feminist theory, feminist methodologies informed by the tenets of Indigenous methodologies, semi-structured interviews and reflexive thematic analysis, our findings demonstrate that Indigenous women and girls are commonly overlooked, and gender is typically an afterthought within the implementation of sport-related CTA by lacrosse organizing bodies in Canada - if they are implemented at all. As a result, we argue that there is a need to make gender a central organizing principle when lacrosse organizations within Canada implement the TRC's CTA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0260.035
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review for the Sociology of SportSame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207