Dominant Discourses at Play: How Children’s Soccer Coaches of Mixed-Sex Programs in Ontario, Canada, Understand Sex and Gender
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we explore how soccer coaches of children’s mixed-sex programs in Ontario understand sex and gender in the context of their coaching practices. Informed by feminist science studies and feminist methodologies, we conducted semistructured interviews with 11 coaches. Through critical discourse analysis, we identified the coaches’ (re)production of three discourses: (a) gender is constructed but categorical; (b) inevitable and hierarchal sex differences necessitate sex segregation; and (c) girls’ sport is vulnerable, and girls in sport require support. The results of this study indicate that these coaches’ understandings of sex and gender are heavily informed by discourses of sex essentialism and sex and gender difference, which together legitimize the need for a binary sex/gender model of sport. Understanding the ways in which sport enforces and is shaped by the limited binary and naturalized notions of sex and gender is one step in reimagining a more just and inclusive model of sport, including children’s sport, and in creating sport spaces where players of all genders can thrive.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".