Intergenerational Perspectives From Elite Female Athletes’ Experiences With the Menstrual Cycle: Weaving in Confessional Insights From a Male Researcher With Emerging Co-Researchers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study sought to explore, in depth, the sporting experiences of two Canadian elite athletes related to the menstrual cycle. Considering male patriarchy, a novel interview approach was used to facilitate between-athlete sharing and reflection on their menstruation-related experiences, initiated by an interview between participants without the male researcher being present. Thematic analysis revealed key differences in the experiences of the two participants with respect to the knowledge and awareness of their coaches, athletes’ attitudes toward the menstrual cycle, and availability of facilities and resources, while highlighting the lack of equality within male-dominated sporting environments and general menstruation taboo in society. An interwoven confessional tale highlighted the challenges imposed by a lack of relatability of experiences of male, non-menstruating researchers and the need to recognize the patriarchal power that in the past has filtered female athletes’ perspectives and specific needs, while unquestionably promoting sport from a male perspective.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it