‘A Secret Instinct of Social Preservation’: legitimacy and the dynamic (re)constitution of Olympic conceptions of the ‘good’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the relative novelty of the contemporary sport-for-development movement, instrumentalising sport for purposes of human and collective development is nothing new. The International Olympic Committee's (ioc) belated efforts to play a leadership role in this movement is ironic, given its 117-year commitment to placing sport at the service of world-cultural ideals of progress, equality, development, modernisation and international understanding. The ioc's behaviour is best understood with reference to the institutional environments it has inhabited. Rather than adapting primarily because of ineffectiveness, the ioc has changed the meanings of its social interventions (often unwittingly) in order to secure legitimacy among its institutional peers and other exogenous actors in world politics (eg states, activist organisations, etc). Reinventing itself in accordance with evolving world-cultural preferences allows it to survive and have a measure of power. Three historical periods are reviewed to illustrate how the social purposes of the Olympic movement have adapted to account for changes in the ioc's institutional environment. Its recent embrace of the sport-for-development movement is merely its latest reinvention.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".