Pressures on Sports Volunteers Arising from Partnerships with the Central Government
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper uses results of two research projects investigating the pressures on volunteers in UK sport to illustrate the implications of partnerships between national governing bodies of sport and the central government. National governing bodies of sport receive funding from the central government via Sport England and UK Sport. This funding has conditions attached. The conditions will affect volunteers at the national level of the NGB, but will also cascade down to volunteers in the sports clubs. Thus, they add to the complexity and scale of tasks performed by club level volunteers, who require additional support to perform them. For most NGBs, this external funding is a very significant proportion of their income, so it may have a corresponding impact on the development of the sports and the work of volunteers. The conditions attached to support can be understood in the broader context of a professionalisation of sport in the voluntary sector. As such, the pressures from the central government are inevitable, but volunteers can also be supported by their NGBs and Sport England.
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 | 0.019 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".