MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770152710 · doi:10.1057/978-1-137-48562-5_6

An Uneven Playing Field: Talent Identification Systems and the Perpetuation of Participation Biases in High Performance Sport

2017· book-chapter· en· W2770152710 on OpenAlexaff
Nick Wattie, Joseph Baker

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSports Analytics and Performance
Canadian institutionsLakeridge Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesIdentification (biology)Ideal (ethics)Field (mathematics)Talent developmentPsychologyPolitical sciencePublic relationsMathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Participation in sport is often held up as an ideal activity for the development of productive youth, minimization of disease risk and maximizing quality of life. Unfortunately, there is overwhelming support for the conclusion that sport and athlete development systems perpetuate systematic biases affecting who has access to sporting opportunities. In particular, several biases emerge from talent identification practices that target those at young ages and from environmental constraints that similarly influence young athletes' development. In this chapter, we use the theory of Life Cycle Skill Formation (LCSF; Cunha and Heckman, Journal of Human Resources, 43, 738–782, 2008; Cunha et al., Handbook of the economics of education. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 2006) to review three significant biases on athlete development. Moreover, we will highlight several avenues that might improve rates of sport participation and identify several areas where future work is necessary.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.541
Threshold uncertainty score0.787

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooksSame topicSports Analytics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207