Nonbinary youth and young adult experiences in organized team sports in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research concerning sexual and gender minority inclusion in sport has primarily focused on cisgender and binary transgender participants. Participation in organized team sport among nonbinary people is understudied. The goal of this study was to identify the barriers nonbinary people face to entering and remaining in organized team sports in Canada. The Understanding Affirming Communities, Relationships and Networks Study surveyed 6495 15-29-year-olds in Canada, including 2513 nonbinary (encompassing genderqueer, agender, third gender and trans nonbinary) and 1929 cisgender respondents. A smaller proportion of nonbinary respondents (11%) participated in team sport compared to cisgender respondents (18%) (p = 0.001). More nonbinary respondents (62%) have played a sport and then stopped compared to cisgender respondents (57%) (p = 0.0008). The most commonly reported reason nonbinary people felt unsafe in sport was discriminatory comments, with >50% witnessing homophobic, transphobic, and/or sexist comments. Structural and policy changes by organizers, administrators, and coaches can support the inclusion of nonbinary people in organized team sports.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".