Sport for Development and Peace and the Environment: The Case for Policy, Practice, and Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper highlights the need for critical attention and reflection within the Sport for Development and Peace (SDP) sector regarding the physical environment. Drawing on fieldwork that examined a variety of SDP initiatives in five different countries, we argue that instrumental concerns at local levels often mean that the physical environment takes a back seat to other development priorities within SDP activity. This is despite the critical importance of issues, such as environmental degradation and the threats posed by climate change, as well as the fact that sport is directly linked to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals and the 2030 Agenda. After providing examples of the relegation of the physical environment in different SDP contexts, we put forth three conceptual frameworks that would be useful within SDP scholarship for advancing critical discussion on this issue within the sector. The final section discusses both the implications of these initial findings and suggests questions and topics for future research around this timely issue.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.051 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.089 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.034 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".