MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031609653 · doi:10.1504/ijsmm.2007.013713

Leave it to the experts: the politics of 'athlete-centeredness' in the Canadian sport system

2007· article· en· W2031609653 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sport Management and Marketing · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDoping in Sports
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesPromotion (chess)PoliticsPublic relationsIdeal (ethics)Order (exchange)Political scienceProcess (computing)Sport managementAdvertisingPsychologyMarketingBusinessMedicineComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For decades, national governments have used sporting success as an instrument for nation-building and the promotion of national image. In Canada, events associated with this instrumental use of sport have led to calls for an 'athlete-centered' system, one that involves athletes at all levels of the system in decision making. In this paper, we contextualise important political events surrounding the creation and implementation of the Canadian sport system before examining the example of Canadian antidoping policy in order to determine if athlete-centeredness has been a primary focus of policymakers and other significant agents in the sport system. Our analysis demonstrates that recent antidoping policy development, despite claims to the contrary, is not truly athlete-centered and that a reevaluation of the policy development process is necessary for the ideal of athlete-centeredness to be realised.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.589
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.279 · 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