Understanding Varsity Athlete's Resistance to Sports' Culture of Risk (CoR)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sport’s “culture of risk” (CoR) normalizes and glorifies playing through pain as a marker of an athlete’s character and commitment. High-profile athletes like Simone Biles and Chris Borland have publicly resisted the CoR by prioritizing their health over participation. Their ability to do so––and to withstand criticism––is enabled, in part, by the capital they enjoy as prolympic athletes. This thesis explores whether (and how) athletes with comparatively less visibility and resources can challenge the CoR’s expectations. Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with ten (10) Canadian varsity athletes revealed that participants negotiated competing desires to be both cautious of their health and committed to performance. Ambivalence is used as a conceptual lens to describe this tension, shaped by the forms and limits of participants’ capital. In this sense, ambivalence was not a universal stance, but one made possible by the relative privilege afforded to varsity athletes 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".