MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211251549 · doi:10.26522/jess.v3i.3711

Physical Activity & The Sustainable Development Goals

2022· article· en· W4211251549 on OpenAlex
Melissa Otterbein

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Emerging Sport Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMillennium Development GoalsSustainable developmentPolitical scienceEconomic growthPublic relationsPovertyBusinessEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the worldwide rise in noncommunicable disease, physical inactivity, obesity, and the global presence of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), health and sport science practitioners must be able to address each of these health domains while considering frameworks for the most urgent health and human development priorities in a sustainable manner. The sector of sport for development, which uses physical activity, sport, and game-based programming to address specific development and peace initiatives to empower individuals and communities, is one such approach that practitioners can employ to address such challenges. During the 2000-2015 era of the United Nations (UN) Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the sport for development sector used sport to address several MDGs, contributing most significantly towards improving HIV/AIDS knowledge, attitudes, and behavior changes. Practitioners are still using sport to address the 2015-2030 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This article explores case studies of 17 sport for development initiatives that are meeting key targets for each of the 17 SDGs. Furthermore, it provides recommendations for how to further advance sport for development’s contributions. By synthesizing cost effective analyses and discussing key components to further the sport for development field, this article maps a way forward to advance sport for development as a cost-effective and viable tool for addressing the SDGs, reducing the effects of unresolved ACEs, and promoting physical activity to help individuals and communities lead healthy, empowered lives.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.327 · 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