MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409454038 · doi:10.1080/13573322.2025.2485259

How is intersectionality being represented by Australian sports organisations? A content analysis

2025· article· en· W4409454038 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Lambert, Lisa Young, Ruth Jeanes, Nadia Bevan, Georgina Roy, Lisa Hunter lisahunter, Justen O’Connor, Ramón Spaaij, Fabiana Cristina Turelli, Fiona McLachlan

Bibliographic record

VenueSport Education and Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntersectionalityContent analysisSociologyContent (measure theory)Sociology of sportGender studiesSocial scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the realm of critical social theory, the application of intersectionality is crucial for addressing social inequalities and advocating for social justice. Our research focuses on the growing integration of intersectionality in Australian sport systems, a development observed in government documents and sports organisations’ operational procedures. Despite this trend, challenges persist in effectively implementing intersectionality due to the common practice of viewing social categories like race, gender and class in isolation. This paper aims to examine the use of intersectionality in Australian sports, particularly in online policy and content. To understand how intersectionality is conceptualised in the context of Australian sports, we conducted a conventional content analysis. This involved purposeful sampling of the websites of the top ten participation sports in Australia, chosen for their significant impact on the national sporting landscape. Our analyses categorised the data into three distinct levels: surface level (explicit mentions and implications of intersectionality), policy level (how policies support or undermine intersectional approaches) and a deeper level (the conceptual understanding of intersectionality in these sports). Our findings suggest that intersectionality is not being adequately conceptualised in Australian sports. Where it is mentioned, it often appears superficially and inconsistently, lacking in-depth understanding or guidance on practical implementation. The dominant trend in sports policy and online content is to silo different social groups, indicating a limited grasp of how these categories intersect and affect individuals. This paper discusses the implications of these findings and proposes ways sports in Australia can adopt a more intersectional approach. To harness its potential, a significant shift is needed from siloed perspectives on diversity and difference to a more integrated, intersectional approach. Such a transition would not only align with the broader societal movement towards equity and inclusion but also enhance the effectiveness of sports policies and practices in addressing complex social dynamics.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSport Education and SocietySame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207