The Gender Pay Gap Magnified in Professional Sports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
abstract: Early in the development of American's interest in athletics there has been a conditioning of the mind toward promoting and rewarding male athletes, while ignoring and undercutting female athletes. There is substantial evidence of the existence of monetary and promotional time given to male athletes and very little support given to their female counterparts. The gender pay gap in professional sports is a culmination of gender discrimination within the entire sports realm. It appears to start at the high school level, continue on into the collegiate sector, and is finally magnified in the professional arena. In high school, male sport's programs are given preference to game and practice times, locations, as well as promotions. In college, male athletic programs are advertised and highlighted as being the premier events to go to. This is also seen in college bookstores with the dominating male event merchandise for sale. In the professional arena, the astronomical value of male athletes' salaries, which go into the multi-millions, makes the gender pay gap glaring. These discrepancies between men and women at each level of sport are in part caused by the underlying informal systems or societal norms and values currently present and encouraged in American culture and communities. These informal systems are often countered by formal systems, such as Title IX. Change cannot truly take place until the two systems are aligned. Thankfully, society today seems to be headed in a more equitable direction; therefore, promoting hope and promise for a more equal future between male and female athletes and their programs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".