Organizational Changes in Canada's Sport System: Toward an Athlete-Centred Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prompted by an examination of the sport system, a reorientation of priorities and actions around high performance sport has occurred in Canada. One of the important changes has been a shift away from the administrative aspects of sport delivery to a focus on the development of high performance athletes. This shift has meant that more resources are now invested directly in high performance athletes rather than in the administration of sport organizations. The purpose of this paper was to explore the reorientation in priorities, from the bureaucracy of sport to the athletes and their development. Using Pettigrew's contextualist approach, we examined the content, context, and process of changes that led to the introduction of athlete-centred initiatives in Canada's sport system. Evidence of the change included increased representation of athletes on decision-making committees of sport federations, increased athlete funding, the creation of training centres, and a forum for athletes to resolve disputes with coaches and sport federations. The change to a more athlete-centred system was the result of pressures originating from the external and internal environments. Key individuals also played an important role in the athlete-centred change. The application of Pettigrew's approach allowed us to discuss the nature of the changes that took place and to better understand the complexity of the change process in light of pressures originating from the context. This paper allowed us to reflect on the reorientation in Canadian sport from a focus on the structural and bureaucratic development of the system to an athlete-centred approach. We also discussed system-wide changes occurring in Canadian sport and uncovered the factors that led to greater athlete-centred programs and services.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".