Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extant research demonstrates that strength and muscularity are associated with masculinity while femininity is associated with frailty and small, lean physiques. Women with sport performance and/or aesthetic goals requiring muscularity often balance their pursuit of muscularity with mitigation strategies (e.g. emphasizing femininity, limiting amount of muscularity) to reduce risks associated with gender non-conformity. However, analysis of interviews with 41 women who powerlift in Australia suggests that the long-established associations between muscularity and masculinity may be wavering. A significant minority of participants articulate that muscularity is compatible with femininity and do not conceptualize their muscular physiques as contrary to their feminine gender expression. This finding presents a departure from previously studied women athletes’ discourses, wherein muscularity was generally considered contrary to femininity, even among those women who embraced muscularity. Using Deleuzian theory, I analyse how gendered norms may be deterritorialized through sporting practice, enabling lines of flight that challenge women’s embodied subordination.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".