THE MAKING OF THE IOC ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AS THE THIRD DIMENSION OF THE OLYMPIC MOVEMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Winter Olympics at Nagano, Japan, in 1998 marked the first Games at which the International Olympic Committee (IOC) had a clearly articulated environmental protection policy that was to be followed by the organizing committee. This article attempts to explain the conditions under which this policy came to be, arguing that it was the widespread environmental damage at the 1992 Albertville and the Savoie Region Games, and the subsequent environmentally conscious Green Games of Lillehammer, Norway (1994), that were the historical benchmarks for the development of this policy. The importance of human/environment interaction in the creation of global sport policy is developed and demonstrates the primacy of local initiatives (Albertville, Lillehammer) upon transnational global concerns (IOC environmental policy), an example of the so-called disjuncture debate. The IOC declaration that environmental protection has become the third dimension of the Olympic movement, alongside sport and culture, is problematic; the IOC policy statements suggest that the IOC led in the development of environmental protection. The authors argue that, after Albertville, the IOC was pressured into developing an environmental policy but had little understanding of how to address this global issue. The Norwegian people, with their long-standing and well-developed respect for nature, provided an example that the IOC embraced. The local initiative of Lillehammer has become the global policy that all future Olympic Games organizing committees must follow if they are to win the bid to organize an Olympiad.
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 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| 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".