MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2745252486 · doi:10.1080/23802014.2017.1314771

The challenges of articulating ‘top down’ and ‘bottom up’ development through sport

2017· article· en· W2745252486 on OpenAlex
David Black

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThird World Thematics A TWQ Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTop-down and bottom-up designPraxisDevelopment (topology)Process managementEngineering ethicsSociologyPolitical scienceEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global development praxis has featured a chronic tension between ‘top down’ and ‘bottom up’ orientations, encompassing both actors and the values and objectives they promote. Top down and bottom up manifestations of sport for development (SFD) have been more closely integrated, practically and imaginatively, than most other development domains, with the logic of ‘bottom up’ development typically subordinated to ‘top down’ assumptions and practices. Scholars and practitioners need to better understand why this situation prevails and how a more mature relationship can be built, based on a healthy measure of critical distance between these orientations in SFD policy and practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.421
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.271 · 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