Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to better understand the factors that may improve or hinder the impact of sport for development and peace projects. Sport for development and/or peace (SDP) has been described as an emerging, yet under-theorized research field (Schnitzeret al., 2013). As such, few authors have analyzed the conditions, best practices and processes needed for achieving impact on context through SDP. The purpose of this paper is to address this gap in current knowledge. Design/methodology/approach – A literature review was chosen to analyze the focus and findings of the related body of work. Findings – A conceptual model of the dominant SDP process serves as a framework to identify and analyze concepts that may influence SDP impact on context. Moreover, this conceptual model provides insight about an apparent empirical incongruity between the theoretical and practical impact of this dominant SDP process on the ground. Practical implications – This paper opens a debate around the process currently deployed by SDP agencies to influence peace and/or development. Specifically, we question if indoctrinating sport-related values into child athletes, who then somehow influence their communities, is the most cost effective process for sport to contribute to development and/or peace. Originality/value – This paper addresses the paucity of insight about concepts that SDP agencies should implement to impact context. This contribution appears significant in a context of increased competition for funding. As growing number of SDP agencies operating in emerging markets compete for rarifying corporate funding, deploying cost-effective projects for development and peace may provide SDP agencies with a competitive advantage.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.003 |
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".