Institutional pressures, government funding and provincial sport organisations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amateur sport organisations are funded through a variety of means, including government funding, corporate sponsorship and/or private donations. In the UK and Canada, amateur sport programs are primarily funded through government grants (Garrett, 2004; Kikulis, 2000; Slack and Hinings, 1994). While sport organisations have provided a rich setting to examine organisational and institutional theoretical concepts, there have been recent calls to extend this line of research further (O'Brien and Slack, 2004). The current study extends DiMaggio and Powell's (1983) concepts of isomorphic pressure by examining how different pressures complement and contradict each other as they impact organisational processes. Specifically, this paper explores the pressures created by Alberta Sports, Recreation Parks and Wildlife Foundation (ASRPWF) on Alberta's provincial sport organisations (APSOs). Results suggest that ASRPWF criteria and reporting requirements operated as institutional pressures impacting the APSOs. The geographic locations of the APSOs and the implementation of brown bag lunch seminars also operate as institutional pressures; however, these pressures minimise the pressures that emanate from the ASRPWF.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".