Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although to some, the power structure of the NCAA is beyond reproach, the purpose of this case is to stimulate discussion of how power evolved within the NCAA’s governance structure. The NCAA has used its regulatory power to control collegiate athletics and to impose their rules on member institutions. The perceived cartel-like nature of the NCAA has brought into question the mission and core values of the organization and whether the NCAA truly has the best interest of its member institutions in mind. Readers of this case should note the unique structure of the NCAA and acknowledge its standing as a nonprofit voluntary institution. However, this line is essentially blurred and the idea of the NCAA serving as a voluntary institution is ostensibly inaccurate considering the lack of available alternatives. Readers should also pay particular attention to the commercialization of college athletics and the role the NCAA has played in controlling television revenues. However, as debate rages over the NCAA’s power, antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA continue to emerge. Furthermore, when coupled with the recent scandals at major institutions such as Ohio State and Penn State of the Big Ten, the looming threat of the formation of super-conferences, and a myriad of other issues, the power and control of the NCAA may soon be called into question.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".