Strategies to Advance Women: Career Insights From Senior Leadership Women in Professional Sport in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women remain minimally represented in senior leadership roles in sport, despite increased female participation in both sport, sport management education programs, and in entry levels positions in the industry. Many women prematurely exit mid-level leadership positions in sport, or are often overlooked for senior leadership positions. To uncover the experiences and strategies of women who made it through the process, we interviewed all the women ( N = 7) who now hold senior leadership positions with professional sport properties in Canada. Participants revealed they overcame real and perceived barriers, and they suggested women seeking senior leadership roles in the industry: (a) find, and later become role models, mentors, and sponsors; (b) create access to networks and opportunities; (c) strategically self-promote, and; (d) purposefully build a varied career portfolio. Recommendations for the industry and all those who work in the industry are presented with a goal to break the cycle and help ensure more equitable and inclusive leaders in the senior leadership ranks.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".