A Comparison of Indigenous Sport for Development Policy Directives in Canada and Australia
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
In this study, we employ Bacchi’s (2012) “What’s the Problem Represented to be” approach to guide our discourse analysis of federal Indigenous sport for development (SFD) policies in Canada and Australia. Through a review of government policies and reports, we highlight the often-divergent policy directives set out by federal departments in these two countries. Namely, inter-departmental partnerships in areas such as health, education, and justice fail to be adequately facilitated through SFD policies in Canada, while, conversely, Australia has strived towards greater federal partnership building. Within the identified Canadian and Australian policies, both countries consistently produced sport as having the potential to contribute to Indigenous peoples’ social and economic development, thus highlighting the growing institutional support behind Indigenous SFD. This policy analysis research provides a novel contribution to the overall growing body of literature investigating the politics of partnership building in SFD initiatives.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it