Ontario high school sport : an investigation of organizational design and its context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2002, The Ontario Federation of School Athletic Associations (OFSAA) \nidentified that in providing extracurricular sport programs schools are faced with the \n'new realities' of the education system. Although research has been conducted \nexploring the pressures impacting the provision of extracurricular school sport \n(Donnelly, Mcloy, Petherick, & Safai, 2000), few studies within the field have \nfocused on understanding extracurricular school sport from an organizational level. \nThe focus of this study was to examine the organizational design (structure, systems, \nand values) of the extracurricular sport department within three Ontario high schools, \nas well as to understand the context within which the departments exist. \nA qualitative multiple case study design was adopted and three public high \nschools were selected from one district school board in Ontario to represent the cases \nunder investigation. Interviews, observations and documents were used to analyze \nthe extracurricular sport department design of each case and to better understand the \ncontext within which the departments exist. As the result of the analysis of the \nstructure, systems and values of each case, two designs emerged- Design KT1 and \nDesign KT2. Differences in the characteristics of design archetype KT1 and KT2 \ncentered on the design dimension of values, and therefore this study identified that \ncontrasting organizational values reflect differences in design types. The \ncharacteristics of the Kitchen Table archetype were found to be transferable to the \nsub-sector of extracurricular school sport, and therefore this research provides a springboard for further research in organizational design within the education sector \nof extracurricular high school sport. \nInterconnections were found between the data associated with the external and \ninternal contexts within which the extracurricular sport departments exist. The \nanalysis of the internal context indicated the important role played by organizational \nmembers in shaping the context within which the departments exist. The analysis of \nthe external context highlighted the institutional pressures that were present within \nthe education environment. Both political and cultural expectations related to the role \nof extracurricular sport within schools were visible and were subsequently used by \nthe high schools to create legitimacy and prestige, and to access resources.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".