MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134926973 · doi:10.7202/008047ar

Sport’s Impact on the Francophoneness of the Alberta Francophone Games (AFG)

2004· article· en· W2134926973 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnologies · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrenchExcellenceContext (archaeology)Promotion (chess)RecreationPolitical sciencePublic relationsSociologyHumanitiesGeographyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses the conflict between two discourses on “sport” and how their intersection with discourses on the “francophone” shaped the Alberta Francophone Games (AFG). A brief description of the two discourses is articulated in the context of the AFG. Whereas the “discourse of excellence” emphasizes both sporting competitiveness and the reproduction of established technical and organizational standards, the “discourse of participation” promotes recreational sport and the modification of structural and technical criteria. The author outlines the three principal debates generated by the interaction of sport and francophone discourses: competitive vs. recreational Games; smaller “francophone” Games vs. bigger French-speaking Games; and sport vs. francophoneness. The conclusion points to the effects of this muddled discursive space on organizers’ practices leading them to focus on the development of an expertise in sport performance and in sport management rather than developing a more sophisticated knowledge of the promotion of francophoneness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.285 · 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