MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026571577 · doi:10.1080/02255189.2000.9669914

Sport and Development: The Significance of Mathare Youth Sports Association

2000· article· fr· W2026571577 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Owen Willis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d études du développement · 2000
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrassrootsPolitical scienceYouth sportsPositive Youth DevelopmentPublic relationsSport managementAssociation (psychology)SociologyEconomic growthPsychologyAthletesPoliticsMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sport is seldom directly associated with international development, receiving scant attention in the literature. While numerous programs are directed towards the advancement of sport, few view it as a significant contributor to development itself. This paper offers an intriguing view of the relationship between sport and grassroots development through the case study of Mathare Youth Sports Association (MYSA), an innovative development organization in Nairobi, Kenya that links youth with sport and developmental initiatives. From humble beginnings, MYSA has come to be one of the largest grassroots organizations in Kenya. It brings some promising avenues for research, particularly on the role of youth in development, the ability of sport to challenge gender stereorypes, and the overarching question of the relationship between sport and development. While sport may allow grassroots organizations a point of entry into the development process, we should not expect too much from the essentially consensualist or functionalist perspectives on the role of sport in society.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d études du développementSame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207