Collaborative governance in a sport system: a critique of a “one-size-fits-all” approach to administering a national standardized sport program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore and critique the collaborative governance structure within a small province, such as New Brunswick (NB), Canada, by identifying the challenges of implementing a national standardized program such as the National Coaching Certification Program. Collaborative governance is understood as two or more organizations working together to make decisions that are the most appropriate for the sport or recreation activity. To explore this purpose, data were collected through surveys, focus groups, and semi-structured interviews. The findings revealed that the Importance of Coach Education for Sport Organizations and Coaches, the Provincial Government, School Sports, Organizational Culture, Cost, Geography, Communications, and Provincial Demographics in NB were themes that emerged. Based on the themes, it can be concluded that those organizations that are in a governance position need to consider the impact that a standardized program can have on those provinces that are smaller in size and with limited resources.
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 | 0.094 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.107 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".