MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809873270 · doi:10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.013

A systematic review of sport for development interventions across six global cities

2018· review· en· W2809873270 on OpenAlexaff
Meredith A. Whitley, William V. Massey, Martin Camiré, Lindsey C. Blom, Megan Chawansky, Shawn Forde, Mish Boutet, Amanda Borbee, Simon C. Darnell

Bibliographic record

VenueSport Management Review · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionSport managementPolitical scienceRegional sciencePsychologySociologyPublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Highlights• Critical appraisal of research on Sport for Development interventions.• Limited methodological details and weak quality of methods and evidence.• Need for more rigorous, systematic research and evaluation efforts.• Next steps identified for Sport for Development organisations and researchers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.010
Bibliometrics0.0120.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations99
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSport Management ReviewSame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207