Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article asks the question: ‘is there a ‘‘right’’ to sport?’ In so doing, the nature of a ‘right’ is defined and the ‘governing rules’ by which that right is to be understood are identified. In short, while a number of international instruments allude to the importance of sport and recreation, there is little evidence of an express right in Australia, or in other countries such as Canada, the United States, and South Africa. Nonetheless, it is arguable that implicit in the rights of disabled persons to enjoy the same access to sport and recreation as able-bodied persons is recognition of a normative right to the benefits of sport for all persons. There may also be a link between access to sport and educational rights, and the rights of children, as recognised under international law more generally. In any event, even if sport is not an ‘end’ in and of itself, it is certainly a ‘means’ to improve the realisation of other human rights and development goals. For example, access to participation in sport can improve gender and racial equality and can assist in promoting social cohesion and tolerance.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".