Organizational culture of local sport organizations: What messages is it sending to participants?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to understand the values of local sport organizations, specifically figure skating clubs, as seen through organizational culture. Studying organizational culture attempts to explore an organization in depth by gaining an understanding of how people interpret the meanings of the environment around them (Martin, 2002). It may also give insight into the experiences of participants. Schein (1992) identifies three levels to analyze organizational culture: artifacts, values, and underlying assumptions. For the purpose of this study, organizational culture was studied by looking at artifacts (cultural manifestations) that included ceremonies and physical arrangements (e.g., architecture, interior d‚cor, and props) (Martin, 2002; Slack, 1997). As Schein (1992) suggests values and other cultural aspects of a club are embedded in these manifestations of organizational culture. Organizational culture has been explored extensively in a business context (Frost, Moore, Louis, Lundberg, & Martin, 1991; Martin, 2002) and is just beginning to be explored in a sport environment (e.g., Colyer, 2000; Hoeber & Frisby, 2001). As organized youth sport activities continue to grow at the community level (i.e., Canadian Soccer Association had 854,750 participants in 2006 compared to 483,686 players in 1995 [CSA, 2006]) it is important to understand what draws a participant to one sport over another, or keeps a participant involved in an physical activity for life. Further exploration into the organizational culture of sport associations may help us understand the influence it has on an individual's experience. In this poster I will show how the manifestations at three figure skating clubs depict the club's dominant values, which may in turn impact the experiences of the participants. The research followed a multiple case study approach. Two main data collection
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".