The Status of Peer-Reviewed Research in Sports and Recreation Management: A Critique of Current Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When analysing the current practices in peer-reviewed research and scholarly publications in sports and recreation management, one is required to consider the purpose and audience of the research. The author of the present study suggests that there is a significant gap between the research community of scholars and the practitioners in sports and recreation management. The relationship that currently exists between the author of peer-reviewed works and the reader of the scholarly publications must be redefined. The review of the research and publication process will establish that the research and publication of scholarly manuscripts must be relevant to the daily practices and operations in the professions of sports and recreation management.
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 | 0.510 | 0.594 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.154 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.078 | 0.046 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".