Strategic Sustainable Development in International Sport Organisations: A Delphi Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aims to explore the consensus-level strategic priorities for sustainable development from the perspective of decision makers in organisations responsible for governing international sport and how they cluster within the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development. We employed the three-round Delphi study with decision makers from international sport organisations. Based on the 29 semi-structured interviews in the first round, we inductively generated items for questionnaires for the subsequent two rounds. The process yielded 20 items representing strategic priorities determined by 20 experts in the last round. The highest ranked item was normative change, in which sustainability is prioritised throughout all organisational strategies and actions. Moreover, planned efforts that are part of a long-term strategy and embedding sustainability requirements at the bidding phase of sport events were considered with high priority. The 20 items clustered into four out of five levels of the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development, namely system, success, strategic guidelines and actions. No items could be assigned to the framework’s tool level, potentially indicating gaps of strategic consideration. The findings from the Delphi study add a forecasting element to the research and practice of strategic sustainability in the management of sport by revealing consensus-level strategic priorities for the future.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".