Evaluating sport development outcomes: the case of a medium-sized international sport event
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research question: This study evaluates sport development outcomes of a medium-sized, one-off, international sport event, while also exploring any strategies and tactics that were implemented with the intention to increase participation or other sport development outcomes. The event under investigation is the 2005 Pan American Junior Athletics Championships.Research method: Retrospective perceptions of sport development outcomes were explored using event documents, 21 semistructured interviews with key stakeholders, and media coverage of the event.Results and Findings: The coaching clinic and the new facility were the only two intended tactics expected to intentionally trigger increases in sport participation and development. The sport facility seemed to have been successful, the coaching clinic was not. All other perceived outcomes, both positive and negative were unintended, and their underlying processes are unclear. Partnerships and relationships were established, but were not activated to serve sport development. It was assumed that ‘awareness,’ the new facility, and positive media coverage would automatically attract new participants. There is some evidence to support the ‘demonstration effect’ for those already involved in the sport, but not for new sport participation. A number of missed opportunities to build sport participation were retrospectively identified. Participation effects in the absence of leveraging are likely to be negligible.Implications: Formulation and implementation of strategies and tactics, and measurements need to be put into place from the outset of an event. This will enable the efficacy of strategies and tactics to be benchmarked and assessed. Future research should focus on the underlying processes, rather than just the impacts and outcomes.
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 | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".