MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Child Protection in Sport: Implications of an Athlete-Centered Philosophy

2008· article· en· W2112909344 on OpenAlexaff
Gretchen Kerr, Ashley Stirling

Bibliographic record

VenueQuest · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChild protectionNeglectPsychologyChild abuseEngineering ethicsHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlPolitical scienceEngineeringLawMedicinePsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As sport is a highly child-populated domain, the establishment of child-protection measures to reduce the potential for child maltreatment in sport is critical. Concern for the protection of children in sport has a history that is as old as modern sport itself; however, it is only recently that concern has been established about children's experiences of relational forms of abuse and neglect in this domain. The purpose of this article, therefore, is to review current developments in sport with respect to child-protection policy, education, and research. It is the authors' supposition that an athlete-centered philosophy of sport is perhaps the best way to address the protection of children in sport. The philosophy of an athlete-centered sport model is described, and through the integration of an athlete-centered approach to sport, recommendations are made for future implementation of child-protection measures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.036
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuestSame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207