Gender-Marked Commentary in Women's Extreme Sport Coverage of the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous researchers have analyzed televised sporting events such as the Olympics, finding differences in the ways gender is portrayed in sport. This thesis critically assesses the framing of female athletes in the commentary of the Winter Olympic extreme sports during NBC’s primetime coverage of the 2010 Vancouver Games. Open coding serves as the method for conducting and analyzing the 2010 extreme sports Olympic coverage. The open coding method revealed two emerging themes, with subthemes for the portrayal of female athletes, which relied heavily on prescribed gender stereotypes and relationships. The gender descriptors used related to the females’ performance in heteronormative and hegemonic ways. Gender marking embedded with stereotypical descriptors is significant to females’ representation in the Olympic telecast, thus perpetuating the innate male standard. Gender marking framed female athletes through male generic language, default mode, spotlighting, feminine and masculine descriptors, trivializing terms, age, animal characteristics, diminutive metaphors, and symbols of femininity. The commentary focused on the female athlete’s relationships with the subthemes of teammates, competitors and rivals, competitors and friends, motherhood, supportive family, and role models. Framing female athletes through gender marking and a focus on relationships are stereotypical narrative themes, which reduce female’s athletic ability, status and power in the context of sport. The analysis gives insight to how gender ideologies and perceptions perpetuate through the social institution of sport and media.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".