Navigating gendered display rules: Women coaches practicing gender through emotional labour
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 study aimed to critically explore the gender dynamics of women head coaches’ emotional labour. We applied conceptualisations of “practicing gender” and emotional labour through a post-structural feminist lens to challenge gender-neutral assumptions, examining emotional labour as a gendered and gendering process within organisational sport contexts.In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine White, able-bodied, cis-gender, heterosexual women head coaches at Canadian universities. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcript data. The two key themes constructed include: (1) gendered display rules and (2) navigating a double-bind. Our findings demonstrate how women coaches used emotional labour to practice masculine and feminine coded display rules to meet the social, professional and emotional demands of their work as head coaches as well as challenge restrictive gendered assumptions. These findings contribute to the field by illustrating the gendered dynamics of coaching work and the implications for women coaches.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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