Framing the Olympic Elite Athlete Funding Issue: A Case Study of Canadian Newspaper Coverage
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
This article employs media framing theory to examine the debate over public funding to support elite athlete development. More specifically, it examines the discourse in Canadian newspaper coverage of the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games surrounding funding for elite athletes. The article first provides an overview of government funding support for elite athletes in Canada and then reviews relevant literature on media framing theory. Methods are discussed, followed by a summary of the frames found in the data analysis process, which examines frames across two distinct time periods—a period leading up to the Games where many stakeholders worried about the ability of Canadian athletes to perform for the host country and the period during and following the Games (where Canadian athletes achieved unprecedented success in winning medals). Several frames emerged from the media coverage regarding the issue of federal government funds for elite athletes over the periods before and during/after the 2010 Olympic Games. Through examining the frequencies of particular frames, we find that three frames—medal performance and national pride, diversified funding approaches, and sport participation and health benefits—were present in both pre-Olympics and during/post-Olympics periods examined, but the salience of the three frames varied between the time periods.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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