Integrating Macro- and Meso-Level Approaches: A Comparative Analysis of Elite Sport Development in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on a research study that analysed elite sport policy change in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom (U.K.), this article underscores the utility of integrating macro- and meso-levels of analysis. We illustrate how macro-level analysis can help explain both the membership of meso-level advocacy coalitions and the policy outcomes from them. The macro-level analysis takes two forms: (i) an exploration of State theory (neo-pluralism); and (ii) an investigation of two macro-political features of the State—the parliamentary support enjoyed by sporting interest groups and the organisational structure of the State. We conclude that despite all three countries being characterised as “least centralised States” where we would expect to find considerable checks and balances to a dominant “State presence” in a particular policy sector, federal/central governments (and their primary sporting agencies) in Australia, Canada and the U.K. have exerted considerable influence in promoting and shaping the values, organisation and activities of elite sport advocacy coalitions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".