MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139493808 · doi:10.1080/00336297.2021.1898996

Towards a Decolonizing Kinesiology Ethics Model

2021· article· en· W3139493808 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueQuest · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDoping in Sports
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinesiologySociologyAutonomyPraxisBeneficenceContext (archaeology)InjusticeEngineering ethicsEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceMedicineLawMedical educationPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kinesiology is a discipline that relies on colonial, scientific understandings of health and the moving body. In addition, ethics courses in Kinesiology predominantly draw from Eurocentric philosophies and legal paradigms. In this article, however, the authors propose a new model of ethics that adds a greater emphasis on decolonial praxis. This process of decolonizing Kinesiology ethics requires accounting for colonial legacies in curricula and acknowledging the power relations sustained by White, patriarchal, ableist, capitalist systems. Therefore, the proposed Decolonizing Kinesiology Ethics Model (DKEM) offers six heuristics to improve ethical work in a wide range of health and sport-related careers. They are: (a) social justice; (b) practitioner vulnerability; and (c) relationships in a social-political-historical context, alongside traditional ethical principles of (d) autonomy; (e) beneficence; and (f) non-maleficence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuestSame topicDoping in SportsFrench-language works237,207