Strategic marketing through sport for development: managing multi-stakeholder partnerships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous literature establishes links between strategic marketing through sport and corporate social responsibility (CSR). While many corporations will leverage sports to reinforce their product and corporate brands, others will use sports as a channel for their CSR efforts aimed at tackling grand societal challenges – global issues that are so complex that multi-stakeholder partnerships are needed to make a difference. As these partnerships involve corporations, non-profits, governments, and other concerned stakeholders, implementing CSR campaigns involving multi-stakeholder partnership remains challenging. Through in-depth interviews with 14 corporate partners of a global movement that enriches the lives of individuals identifying with intellectual disabilities through sport, our study proposes a conceptual model that crystallizes how corporate partners are activated by the multi-stakeholder partner – our proposed sport for development Partnership Management Matrix provides insights about the importance of the frequency and formality of connection between multi-stakeholder partners. Accordingly, a discussion about how the frequency and formality of connections can contribute to producing greater brand value than traditional strategic marketing through sports is provided.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".