Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 778 BC, three kings of ancient Greece met to discuss the upcoming Olympic Games, and out of their meeting the tradition of the "Ekecheiria" or "Truce" was established. During the truce period, the athletes and their families—as well as ordinary pilgrims—could travel in total safety to participate in or attend the Olympic Games and return afterwards to their respective countries. It was a sacred message, pronounced throughout Greece—and one of the first recorded instances that sport was used for conflict resolution (Toohey, 2007 p.65). This was only the beginning of sport being used as a tool for change. The Ancient Mesoamerican game of Ōllamaliztli served as a way to defuse or resolve conflicts through a ballgame instead of a battle, and over time it would serve to resolve competition and conflict within the society (Taladoire, 2001, p.97-115). More recently, baseball was used as a way to relieve tension between the US and Japan after World War II, bringing the two nations together through a common passion (Price, 2010). The past 30 years have seen a tremendous rise in the use of sports as a means to resolve conflicts—especially by the United Nations. In October 1993, UN resolution 48/11 revived the long dead tradition of Olympic Truces (Lemke, 2012). In 2001, the UN introduced its Office on Sport for Development and Peace, and, in 2005, the UN declared the “International Year of Sport and Physical Education.” In October 2009 the UN General Assembly adopted by consensus a resolution recognizing the 2010 Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver as an opportunity to build “a peaceful and better world through sport and the Olympic ideal” (Lemke, 2012). In addition, an increasing number of countries (Cape Verde 2005, Mozambique 2011, Sierra Leone 2005, Tanzania 2011, Uganda 2010) have integrated sports into their national Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, (frameworks guiding low-income countries to attain the UN’s millennium development goals) with the specific aim of “peace building.” Just recently, on April 6th, 2014, the world celebrated its first ever International Day of Sport for Development and Peace (Lemke, 2012). At the forefront of this endeavor are non-governmental organizations, or NGOs. NGOs are non-profit, voluntary citizens' groups that are task-oriented and driven by people with a common interest, performing a variety of service and humanitarian functions. Sports NGOs perform a similar role, only using sports as their focal point for service and humanitarian interactions—and they currently seem to be booming in size and scope. According to Howard Brodwin, founder of North America’s largest sports NGO directory (sportsandsocialchange.org), there has been a significant increase in the number of organizations on his site in recent years, to a total of 483. Though this cannot be directly equated to an increase in sports NGOs (as many were in existence prior to joining the directory), it does suggest an increase in the number of organizations large enough to request a directory listing. In addition, giving to sports NGOs has risen dramatically. Nike, the world’s largest shoe brand, gave $52.7 million in community investment in 2013, much of which went to the seven different sports NGOs they sponsor throughout the world (Nike CR Report, 2014). This is an increase over the $250,000 invested only seven years prior in 2006 (Nike CR Report, 2014). Sports NGOs are on the rise, and have been at the forefront of almost every major social issue, including conflict resolution (Brodwin, 2014). However, why has there been such a rise in sports NGOs? What do these NGOs hope to accomplish with sports, and what skills do they teach? How can these NGOs best utilize sports to accomplish their goals? More specifically, how are sports useful in post-conflict scenarios, and how can they best improve? In this thesis, I hope to determine the purpose of the sports NGO industry, the scope of what sports NGOs are attempting to accomplish, and the best practices that a sports NGO could use to accomplish its goals, primarily looking through the lens of sports and conflict resolution. My thesis will have a heavy focus on conflict resolution NGOs, but will also speak to the broader sports NGO landscape as well.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.003 |
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".