Olympic education and beyond: Olympism and value legacies from the Olympic and Paralympic Games
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article starts with a discussion on the links between Olympism and education as presented in the early years of the modern Olympic Movement and the ideological vision of its founder, Baron Pierre de Coubertin. Questions about whether that vision can remain as an ideological platform for the Olympic and Paralympic Games are debated in the light of the emerging challenges of the contemporary era. The key pedagogical approaches of "Olympic education" are reviewed and are examined in order to consider the different ways in which Olympic value legacies can be achieved in varying contexts. Keywords: OlympismOlympic educationPierre de CoubertinOlympic and Paralympic valueslegacies Notes 1. This article is a development of the author's published book chapter: Chatziefstathiou, D. (2011) Olympism: A learning philosophy for physical education and youth sport. In Introduction to Sport Pedagogy for Teachers and Coaches: Effective learners in physical education and youth sport, ed. K. M. Armour, 90–101. Harlow: Pearson. 2. In his speeches of that period, Coubertin seemed very keen to promote the principle of social equality and advocates sport for all. See for example his Letter "To The Members of the International Olympic Committee" (January, 1919) (Müller Citation2000, 737–41). 3. The Olympic Movement consists of the IOC, the Organising Committees of the Olympic Games (OCOGs), the NOCs, the IFs, the national associations, clubs and, of course, the athletes (IOC 2011), including the International Olympic Academy and the National Olympic Acedemies, as well as by the establishment of the global sports development programme of Olympic Solidarity. 4. OVEP is a tool to maintain young people's interest in sport, encouraging them to practise sport, and promoting the Olympic values. OVEP consists of two parts: (a) a teaching toolkit; (b) a collection of initiatives around the world. 5. For example, Centre for Olympic Studies & Research (COS&R), Loughborough University, UK; Olympic Studies Centre (CEO-UAB), Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain; International Centre for Olympic Studies (ICOS), University of Western Ontario, Canada; Centre for Olympic Studies, University of Canterbury, New Zealand; Centre for Olympic Studies, Sydney, the University of South Wales (UNSW), Australia; Humanistic Olympic Studies Centre, Renmin University, China; Centre for Olympic Research & Education (CORE), University of Tsukuba, Japan. For a list of the Olympic Study centres world-wide go to: http://www.olympic.org/Assets/OSC%20Section/pdf/OSCs%20in%20the%20world.pdf 6. For a more comprehensive philosophical discussion on central concepts of education please see the following: Bailey (Citation2010), Barrow and Woods (Citation2001), Carr (Citation2003), and Dewey (Citation1897), Dewey (Citation1899). 7. The Centre for Sport Physical Education and Activity Research (SPEAR) at Canterbury Christ Church University was commissioned to develop an evidence-based guide to inform strategy and practice for developing a physical activity, sport and health legacy from the 2012 Games. The full guide can be found here: http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/Research/Centres/SPEAR/ResearchProjects/Documents/Active%20Celebrations%20IM.pdf
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it