"Ice queens" and "snow studs": \n\t\t\t\tgender stereotypes and the 2010 Winter Olympic Games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2010, the United States of America experienced an unprecedented Winter Olympic Games, winning a total of 37 medals, including nine gold medals. American spectators included the 190 million who viewed the primetime Olympic televised coverage on NBC, and a portion of the 1.6 million in attendance (Vancouver, 2010). There were more than 5,500 athletes, both men and women, who participated in a variety of winter sports. Despite these impressive numbers, little is known about the media's representation, or audience perceptions of the Winter Olympic sports and its athletes. This research utilized two methodologies (a content analysis and a survey) to analyze gender stereotypes in the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. A nationwide sample of 718 survey participants sex-typed the 12 Winter Olympic sports as either masculine, gender-neutral, or feminine. Then, the televised content was analyzed for prominence of coverage, visual gender cues, and verbal gender cues of male and female athletes and masculine and feminine sports. Finally, survey participant attitudes about a masculine sport (snowboarding) and a feminine sport (figure skating) were examined for gender stereotypes. Data were analyzed with the guidance of gender schema theory and social role theory. The content analysis revealed multiple gender cues in amount of televised coverage, camera angles, camera shots, and commentary. Survey results mirror these gender cues; the Winter Olympic sports are sex-typed according to gender schemas, and audience attitudes about the Olympic athletes reflect gender roles in society. Specifically, male and female athletes participating in gender-appropriate sports are perceived as favorable, while athletes participating in gender-inappropriate sports are perceived as unfavorable. Audience perceptions of sports and athletes arguably influence media spectatorship, sponsorship, and marketability. Limitations of this research include the convenience nature of the survey distribution, and the focus on specific Olympic sports. Additional research will expand these findings and broaden the understanding of gender stereotypes in sports. (Published By University of Alabama Libraries)
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".