Discerning consent on the Gridiron: violence, hazing, and performance enhancing drug ise in Canadian football
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores the disjuncture between Canadian football players' experiences and perceptions of consent in relation to on-field violence, hazing, and performance-enhancing drug use and the textual representations and hand lings of these acts in the Canadian legal system and/or by league review committees. This thesis provides ample evidence that the institutional disciplinary hand lings of these acts of deviance in Canadian football do not align with the perceptions and interests of Canadian football players. In this work, two main theoretical concepts are developed and applied to provide descriptive sociological insight into the legal issue of consent in Canadian football, including tolerable deviance and a legal concept of constraint. The canons of exploratory research are followed in this study, which provide guidelines to follow but no rigid methodological rules. Through the combination of three f existing theory/methods a unique methodological approach is developed that is indeinite, flexible, and creative to aptly explore the complexities of on-field violence, hazing, and performance-enhancing drug use in Canadian football. This approach is not without theory or method but rather, draws on three approaches that can be termed exploratory theory/methods including: Institutional Ethnography, Actor-Network Theory, and Grounded Theory. The data developed and activated in this study include media files, over 40 Canadian legal cases, 81 semi-directed interviews with football players and administrators across Canada, published autobiographies of professional football players, as well as various texts involved in the institutional handling of disciplinary matters in junior, university, and professional football in Canada.
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 | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".