Exposing a lack of communication regarding sport policy: An analysis of the Canadian talent identification process
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Sports Policy Factors Leading to International Sporting Success (SPLISS), a comparative high performance and elite sport (HPS) model, has identified nine distinct pillars that contribute to the success of a country’s HPS system. The study was originally conducted in 2003 with seven nations from Europe and North America. Beginning in 2009, the study was repeated and expanded to include 17 nations from North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Oceania. While the SPLISS study was designed to examine and compare countries’ HPS systems, the aim of this research is to compare the intra-country results of Canadian athletes, coaches, and performance directors with the goal of exposing communication and perception issues of the three groups to one environment.\nQuantitative data was obtained through surveys (online and word document) and telephone interviews between September 2011 to May 2012. 11 coaches, eight performance directors and 161 athletes completed the survey. The low number of respondents in the performance director and coach groups limited possible quantitative analysis methods, due to reliability and validity. However, the existence of the SPLISS framework provided direction for descriptive analysis by comparing responses towards each pillar for each survey group.\nWithin pillar four (talent identification and development) and pillar five (athletic and post-career support), descriptive analysis revealed interesting discrepancies regarding the viewpoints of the different groups. In one specific example, the athletes believe they were identified as elite athletes by the national governing body between the ages of 16 to 18, whereas six out of eight performance directors noted athletes were identified as an elite athlete below or at the age of 13. Amongst coaches, there was no clear consensus of an age category with answers ranging from 11 to 25. However, seven coaches expressed that the identified age was too late. The lack of consistent recognition between the groups on the actual HPS identification age may indicate a communication problem within the talent identification process. It is possible that athletes are being identified without knowing it. Talent identification is an important step in the development of HPS athletes, yet it appears the process of identification is unclear to the athlete. This is just one example of differed understanding towards sport policy and the presentation will outline other areas where a lack of communication may be present. Increased effective communication between stakeholder groups may assist with the creation, clarification, and implementation of sport policy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,053 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,021 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».