An Assessment of Sport Canada's Sport Funding and Accountability Framework, 1995–2004
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 The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of Sport Canada's Sport Funding and Accountability Framework (SFAF) from 1995–2004 within the context of four differently funded NSOs. The perceptions of 16 stakeholders (management staff, President, Sport Program Officer, athlete reps) were attained using semi-structured open-ended interviews. Accountability, accountability relationships, and the effectiveness of the SFAF relative to NSO development were the areas of focus. Written documentation verified information expressed by interviewees. Differences in internal accountability processes and the quality of the accountability relationships shared with Sport Canada existed within NSOs relative to its funding category. The SFAF was deemed an effective tool, but negative implications such as competition between NSOs and a tendency towards accountancy were noted. Recommendations for NSOs and Sport Canada regarding accountability in Canadian sport were developed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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