The Socio-economic Value of Sports: Strengthening Social Capital through Football
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to: examine the aspect of social capital in sports; examine the contribution of sport in strengthening social capital; examine the use of sport as a place for individual development and also to examine the process of internalization and socialization of social capital on the individual players. It is a descriptive study. The qualitative method is used since the paper describes the social interaction patterns in football. In collecting the data, the researcher has acted as the major research tool. The data collected include: (1) symptoms of social interaction in sports which consist of social contact, communication, and forms of social interaction, (2) the indication of social capital in football, and (3) implications of football to the individual development of the players. The data consists of both the primary and secondary data. Regarding the techniques used in collecting the data, this study uses the review of documents, interviews, and observations. The data obtained, has been analyzed qualitatively. The results show that sport contributes to the strengthening of social capital. It strengthens cooperation and working together, improves social networks, personal qualities as individuals and society. The functions of the football promote features of social capital.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".