Gender inclusivity in sport? From value, to values, to actions, to equality for Canadian athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shawn H.E. Harmon*abca Policy Analyst, Health Law Institute, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canadab Adjunct Professor, School of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canadac Honorary Fellow, School of Law, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, ScotlandCONTACT Shawn H.E. Harmon shawn.harmon@dal.ca Policy Analyst, Health Law Institute, Dalhousie University, Halifax, CanadaABSTRACTSport is an important and universal element of culture, providing people with opportunities for improved health and fitness and for social interaction through which they can develop knowledge, skills and attitudes for full participation in society. Through its capacity to deepen inclusion and encourage, improve health and wellbeing, and help realise fundamental human rights, sport has been characterised as a form of positive social capital. However, sport frequently fails to deliver on its promise, and it has a long history of inhumane treatment of athletes at all levels, particularly women and trans athletes who do not confirm to heteronormative genders and identities. This paper highlights several examples of unequal treatment based on gender and two useful Canadian policy responses. It then argues that these statements/policies are not enough. The aims of sport would benefit from greater attention to both the value foundation for sport, and the mechanisms for realising a new sporting culture within which athletes of all genders can thrive. It goes on to articulate some of the key values and some mechanisms for achieving improved inclusivity. It also appends a Statement of Values and Actions on Gender Inclusivity, which was developed in part through the ‘Inclusiveness in Sport Roundtable’, a facilitated, multi-disciplinary discussion held with key actors in Nova Scotia sport.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 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".