Leveraging participation in Olympic sports: a call for experiential qualitative case study research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through this research note, we intend to advocate the importance of investigating introductory sport programmes in connection with leveraging initiatives to understand: (1) the processes of, as well as the forces shaping, the development of introductory sport programmes, (2) the experiences of participants in these programmes and (3) how these programmes connect to broader leveraging structures and initiatives. Additionally, a qualitative case study methodology presents an effective research strategy to achieve these goals. We also outline the promise of a qualitative case study methodology by illustrating its potential for deepening our understanding of leveraging-related programme development. While past research has focused on the construction of these programmes, we argue for the need to explore what the leveraging experience is like for those engaging in introductory sport programmes. Through exploring the development and experiences of introductory sport programmes, scholars can develop new research directions and questions, as well as inform future leveraging initiatives.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it