A Phenomenological Analysis on Evaluation of Sports Management Department Curriculum by Sports Sciences Faculty Members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is evaluating the curriculum of sports management department, which is offered by sportssciences faculties and schools of physical education and sports, by faculty members. With this study, which isconstructed on qualitative research methods and a phenomenological pattern, instead of statistical generalizations,analytical generalizations were performed, a hypothesis was formed and hypothetical theorems were proposed.“Convenience Sampling”, which is a form of purposive sampling, was chosen as the method of sampling.Semi-structured interview forms were used during data collection. Interview data were put down on paper andorganized, and themes were created by determining meaningful data. In accordance with the themes, categories wereformed and findings were extracted. In the light of obtained data, faculty members point out that the existingcurriculum helps students’ professional development with theoretical classes such as sports law, sports economy,administration, economics and sports management. In contrast, they also mentioned negative aspects of thecurriculum such as scarcity of applied classes, inadequate sports facilities, lack of sectoral collaboration andinefficiency of sports management applications. It is envisioned that findings of this study will improve thepreparation and organization processes of sports management curriculums of sports sciences faculties and schools ofphysical education and sports.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".