The “diaspora” diaspora in sport? A systematic literature review of empirical studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study and application of the concept of diaspora has grown from its original references to a particular group to encapsulate any individual or group living in a collective community. In the sociological study of sport, diaspora is applied in innovative but potentially problematic ways insofar as the concept of “diaspora” may lose its conceptual and theoretical roots. Given this – as well as the call for greater scholarly examination of diaspora and sport – this article offers a systematic literature review on studies concerned with diaspora and sport. Specifically, we critically discuss: (1) How was diaspora conceptualized? (2) What populations were studied and in what context? (3) How was diaspora examined (i.e. methodology)? (4) What were the results of the study (i.e. main findings and discussion)? In conclusion, we offer theoretical and conceptual dialogue and questions about the future study of diaspora and sport, as well as the application of the term diaspora to dispersed groups in sport contexts.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".