MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408122672 · doi:10.1080/13573322.2025.2472339

Frenemies, Wannabies and Jocks: navigating the physical cultural capital ladder

2025· article· en· W4408122672 on OpenAlexaffabout
Evan Boechler, M. Louise Humbert, Lee Schaefer, Doug Hillis

Bibliographic record

VenueSport Education and Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical educationCultural capitalSociologySocial capitalHabitusCapital (architecture)PedagogyPsychologySocial scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research explored the dynamic landscape of high school physical education, a setting aimed to equip students with the competence and confidence needed to live a physically active lifestyle. Despite its recognized role in promoting daily physical activity among boys (Tanaka et al., 2018), a significant knowledge gap persists regarding the specific factors influencing their enjoyment and active participation in physical education classes. Using a retrospective qualitative descriptive approach, this study examined the high school physical education experiences of 10 male-identifying students at the University of Saskatchewan. Guided by the concept of physical cultural capital (Jachyra, 2014), the research employed two rounds of in-depth, semi-structured interviews to unpack these complex experiences. Findings revealed that physical cultural capital – embodied through traits such as competitiveness, involvement in community hockey or school football, and physical attributes – played a central role in shaping boys’ experiences in physical education. These findings aligned with previous research (Jachyra, 2014) while addressing a notable gap in understanding boys’ participation in physical education, offering valuable insights for future exploration in this under-researched area.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSport Education and SocietySame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207