MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161236499 · doi:10.1177/0193723514557822

The International Olympic Committee–International Paralympic Committee Relationship

2014· article· en· W2161236499 on OpenAlexaff
David Legg, Ted Fay, Eli A. Wolff, Mary A. Hums

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sport and Social Issues · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesInclusion (mineral)Principal (computer security)Grounded theorySocial identity theoryPolitical scienceSociologyGender studiesPublic relationsSocial groupSocial scienceQualitative researchComputer securityComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inclusion of athletes with a disability into the Olympic Games has been a long-standing issue within the Paralympic Movement. This article reviews the history of including athletes with a disability into the Olympic Games using two frameworks, the Critical Change Factors Model (CCFM) and its companion, the Organizational Continuum for the Inclusion of Identity Groups in Sport (OCIIS). The CCFM and OCIIS were developed by Fay, grounded in critical social, principal–agent, and open systems theories. Last, the authors identify five future scenarios noting where they would fit within the two frameworks.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sport and Social IssuesSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207