Libratory Vulnerability: Reimagining Indigenous Hockey Masculinities in Jordin Tootoo’s All the Way and Theo Fleury’s Playing with Fire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Theo Fleury’s Playing with Fire (2009) and Jordin Tootoo’s All the Way: My Life on Ice (2014) are key texts in the under-researched fields of Indigenous hockey and Indigenous hockey masculinity. However, the importance of these autobiographies is not simply their contributions to these overlooked fields, but how each author models the fundamental value of vulnerability to their healing journeys from trauma and substance abuse. Tootoo (Inuk) and Fleury (Métis) were notorious National Hockey League “tough guys,” and so many readers expecting a rehearsal of hockey hypermasculinity would be surprised by the libratory masculinity offered by these books. We argue that the limited potentiality of these autobiographies lies in their possibility of reaching and affecting male audiences predisposed to hypermasculinity; the liberal possibilities of Fleury and Tootoo’s books are limited by their basis in dominant hockey culture and hypermasculinity, but at the same time they can potentially reach hyper-masculine hockey fans that other more radical works would not. Thus, the paradox of these autobiographies is that their hypermasculine tropes shift dominant hockey culture toward greater vulnerability, but it is these same tropes that also limit the changes that can be imagined to hockey culture. The objectives of this article are to: emphasize the need for vulnerability in Indigenous masculinities studies; illustrate that disembodiment is a common experience for Indigenous hockey players at the elite level; offer the term libratory masculinity to capture the oscillation between hyper-masculinity and masculinity; and propose that hockey hypermasculinity is antithetical to healing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".