"We are not products": Stereotyping women athletes in karate through demands on femininity and sensual bodies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we are focusing on the conceptions of femininity, female bodies, and beauty in sport that women high-level karate fighters and their coaches developed in order to perform in a traditionally male-oriented sport. With so much higher public profile for women in sports (e.g., soccer, rugby, cricket, traditionally male sports), has anything changed in the traditional order of the male preserve? Thus, our aim here is to reflect on the set of shown conceptions and assumptions in order to add to the produced literature on women's sports studies and hopefully contribute to sought advancements, claiming change. We interviewed the 14 women athletes and their four men coaches composing the women's Spanish Olympic karate squad in preparation for the 2020 (2021) Tokyo Olympic Games. Two open-ended semi-structured interviews were carried out with each of the participants. We conclude that the sportive-martial environment is still strongly male-oriented, even though female participation has been increasing; nevertheless, girls and women still face several challenges to achieve belonging. They enter the environment and reach the status of black belts, or elite athletes. Notwithstanding, we argue that the amount of power they truly exercise is limited and submitted to the male hierarchy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".