Hegemonic masculinity : just another day at the gym? / by Justin Conley.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is an examination of masculinity and gym culture in a regional \nCanadian community. Through ethnographic observation and in depth interviews I \nexplore the ways in which masculinity is Hterally embodied in the gym through \nparticipation in weight lifting and interaction with peers. Drawing on research on \nmasculinity, sociology of the body, and feminist and gender studies, I examine the \nsocial construction of hegemonic masculinity and the extent to which it influences men's \ndesires to lift weights as well as how it permeates and shapes the gym environments in \nwhich this activity is carried out. In contrast to earHer social science work which focuses \nprimarily on elite, urban bodybuilders, this study examines the experience of \nrecreational weight lifters in two distinct gym settings, "hard core gyms" and \n"chromed-up health spas" (or health clubs). Comparisons and contrasts in the \nconstruction of masculinity in these two settings are drawn and data is compared with \nthe experiences of elite bodybuilders described in the earlier studies. \nI argue that the experiences of recreational bodybuilders in a regional Canadian \ncommunity are different than those of professional bodybuilders. What links these two \ndifferent communities together is how hegemonic masculinity affects the men that \nwork out. Hegemonic masculinity invades gyms in different ways and therefore affects \nthe men in these gyms in subtly different ways. I have argued throughout this thesis \nthat the works of Alan Klein (1993) and Samuel Fussell (1991) are useful and necessary, \nhowever, do not account for the range of experiences that men go through well at the \ngym.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".