Bibliographic record
Abstract
This ethnography explores how a group of adolescents—predominantly girls—negotiated a sport-for-development program centred on the traditionally masculine pastime of mixed martial arts (MMA). The ethnographic setting was a youth centre in central Montréal that provides free after-school programming for youths aged 11 to 18 years. Our analysis yielded three prominent themes: 1) ‘girls don’t do MMA,’ in which we discovered how young female pugilists actively challenged residual stereotypes that cast them as ‘too soft’ to play violent sports such as MMA; 2) ‘a mixed bag of martial artists,’ in which we learned how local youths conceived MMA as a vehicle for supporting innovative agendas that extended well-beyond the sport of MMA; and 3) the ‘racialization of self-defence,’ in which we witnessed how self-defence against complex social realities (profiling and marginalization) experienced by many non-white youths in the area were integrated into the teachings of the MMA program. Collectively, these themes raise important questions about the socially significant role(s) that MMA plays in the lives of local youths with respect to their race, class, and gendered identities.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".