The privilege to play: race, gender, & SES advantages in boys’ high school athletic opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, with an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design, we considered the components and implications of a habitus that (re)produces racial/ethnic, social class, and gender differences in US interscholastic sport participation. We drew from independently collected qualitative (N = 19 men and 47 total college athletes) and quantitative (N = 4,097 high school boys) data and noted and investigated dynamic links between individual choices; family, community, and school contexts; and power structures that inform interscholastic athletics. Findings positioned sports as offering valuable institutionalized cultural capital but being rife with reproductive struggles. Schools serve as fields that co-construct unequal athletic opportunity structures by nurturing and rewarding a cultivated athletic habitus associated with masculinity, whiteness, and affluent dispositions. These processes situate athletic advantages and successes as purely meritorious but restrict who is most likely to receive the individual and social benefits of high school sports participation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".