MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169056798 · doi:10.1136/bjsm.2008.051433

Definition and constituents of maltreatment in sport: establishing a conceptual framework for research practitioners

2008· review· en· W2169056798 on OpenAlexaff
Ashley Stirling

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalientAthletesConsistency (knowledge bases)Conceptual frameworkPsychologyApplied psychologyConceptual modelEngineering ethicsMedicineManagement scienceComputer scienceSociologyEngineeringSocial sciencePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has recently been an increased emergence of research on the maltreatment of athletes in sport. It is suggested that research may play a particularly salient role with respect to athlete protection initiatives. However, as it stands, current research in this area is limited by a lack of consistency in definitions. The purpose of the paper, therefore, is to propose a conceptual framework of maltreatment in sport to be used among research practitioners. More specifically, a conceptual model of the different categories, constructs and constituents of maltreatment in sport is proposed. Sport-specific examples of the various maltreatments are outlined. Current literature is reviewed, and recommendations are made for future research.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.015
Science and technology studies0.0020.012
Scholarly communication0.0080.014
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0060.007
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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations148
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207