MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147968433 · doi:10.7202/040767ar

Integration of Paralympic Athletes into Athletics Canada

2007· article· en· W2147968433 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
P. David Howe

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Canadian Studies · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsAthletic Edge Sports Medicine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesEthnographyProcess (computing)PsychologyHabitusAccommodationRacial integrationPublic relationsApplied psychologyPolitical scienceSociologyGender studiesComputer sciencePhysical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the integration of Paralympic athletes into Athletics Canada. Highlighting the charitable foundation of sport for the disabled as well as the issue of classification, this paper offers insight into the habitus of Paralympic athletics as a key factor influencing this integration process. Integration is conceptualized on a continuum of compliance where true integration is the goal and segregation is frowned upon. Using ethnographic data collected in participant observation roles as an athlete, administrator, and journalist, the paper illuminates the success of the Paralympics in capturing the imagination of the Canadian public. At the same time, the process of integration within Athletics Canada has been less than successful because the achievement of athletes with disabilities is not as valued, by those who administer the sport, as those of their "able" counterparts. To this end the integration process within Athletic Canada appears to be stuck at the uncomfortable point of accommodation, which means that a truly integrated sport system is still a goal to be achieved.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0230.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations36
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Canadian StudiesSame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207