Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hockey culture has been demonstrated to be a site of racism, homophobia, misogyny and other forms of domination which keep men’s ice hockey stuck with hypermasculine narratives as young hockey boys chase a place within this culture. This study, conducted with an Elite U18 male ice hockey team in Western Canada, used photovoice as a means to enquire into young male athlete experiences in schools and the tension between being celebrated as a hockey boy and the domination of hypermasculinity in their everyday lives. Photovoice was used to open up conversations with images participants took during their days at a specialized sport academy regarding their feelings of disengagement in school. The findings show the weight of the hypermasculine narratives on hockey boys including toughness, homophobia, and classism as well as the implications on their mental health and risk of violent acts from being in an isolated and exclusive white patriarchal community. Young male athletes, desiring to continue to play elite hockey, unknowingly find themselves within a masculine moral paradox by becoming both constrained by and consenting to the hypermasculine narratives, further ensconcing hypermasculinity within hockey culture. The article brings together Connell’s hegemonic masculinity, Eisner’s three curricula, and Bourdieu’s theory of cultural reproduction as a means to generate awareness of the ways in which the entrenchment of masculine (hegemony) domination is deeply engrained in the fields of education, hockey culture, and the home.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.379 | 0.199 |
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".