A Commentary on Sport and Terrorism From the Vantage of Sport Psychology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors of this article engage in a commentary regarding broad thematic areas identified within the special issue on sport and terrorism. The commentary begins with the authors situating themselves within the field of sport psychology, and as critical scholars more specifically within the emerging cultural sport psychology genre. To further contextualize certain aspects of criticality outlined from a sport psychology vantage, a brief story is offered where one of the authors shares his experience as a volunteer during the 1996 Olympics as a volunteer, where he was first exposed to sport and terrorism. Next, discussions are taken up in relation to four themes that we identified as relevant from the foregoing sport psychology vantage: (a) sport events and terrorism as mainstream, (b) terrorism and the media as conduit, (c) sport as a recruitment tool toward and away from terrorism, and (d) sport as an antidote to terrorism. The commentary authors conclude with a summation followed by parting critical reflections in relation to the current and future status of this emerging area.
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 | 0.009 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.028 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".