Safeguarding Reimagined: Centering Athletes’ Rights and Repositioning Para Sport to Chart a New Path
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Para sport has much to teach the broader sports world about safeguarding and athlete protections. By centering athletes' human rights and underlining the rights-based philosophical underpinnings of the Paralympic Movement, we outline how sport can be safer to all players, coaches, and other participants. Methods: We address global Human Rights conventions and their application to Para and non-disabled sport. Safe Sport is positioned as a matter of human rights. The nature of interpersonal violence that human beings experience within and outside sport is discussed. The intersectionality of vulnerable identities (related to gender, sexuality, disability, ethnicity, etc.) is reviewed in some detail. Results: Rights violations in Para and non-disabled sport illustrate both individual and organizational vulnerabilities. Individual- and organizational-level drivers of abuse, as well as various modes and types of abuse observed in Para sport, are relevant in all sport settings and should be centered in global sport safeguarding work. The rights-based core of Para and similar sports movements, exemplifies this. Conclusion: From a Para-informed vantage point, we issue a call to action, where interpersonal violence in sport is reduced by leveraging relevant elements of the Paralympic Movement. This call asks all sport participants to reject a purely capitalist approach to sport and follow a Para sport paradigm; which embodies human achievement (including sporting success), reflects human rights and inherent human dignity, and requires a higher standard of behaviour.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".