Why do governments invest in elite sport? A polemic
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elite sport currently enjoys high levels of investment in many advanced capitalist countries. The primary aim of this piece is to introduce and unpack the reasons generally given by states for prioritizing and investing in elite sport. While our core focus is the UK sport policy sector, many of the discussions will be relevant for other, advanced liberal capitalist systems (e.g. Australia and Canada) and even the now defunct dictatorships (e.g. the Soviet Union and the GDR). We show how commonsensical propositions (e.g. ‘elite sport success promotes participation among citizens’) are not always based on wide, existing research and evidence. The philosophy behind the United Kingdom's model of sport – and that of several other advanced states – we term a ‘virtuous cycle’ of sport, whereby elite sport success is seen to lead to both international prestige for the nation, a ‘feel-good factor’ among the population and, importantly, to an increase in participation among the masses. This, in turn, leads to a healthier nation and to a wider pool of people from which to pick the champions of the future. This article takes a closer look at the assumptions underlying such a model of sport.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it