The significance of <i>plus-development</i> through sport: the practices and neoliberal politics of attracting participants to corporate sport-for-development
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite significant growth in the sport-for-development (SFD) sector, there has been little research to date examining the ways that SFD organizations attract communities, and/or the reasons that SFD organizations are able to attract and retain community members in their programmes. The purpose of this study was to explore how and why Maple Leafs Sports and Entertainment (MLSE) Launchpad, an SFD facility in downtown Toronto, attracted participants into its programmes, and to understand how and why community members took up the offer to engage in its programmes. Using ethnographic observations and semi-structured interviews with Launchpad staff, we found that ‘development’ activities, with little or no sport component to them at all, were, in many instances, the main attraction to participants at MLSE Launchpad, a phenomenon that we term ‘plus-development.’ In these cases, what attracted participants to MLSE Launchpad were programmes that, in practice, filled gaps in basic social and community service provisions. We use these findings to advance some critical insights about the broader neoliberal structures under which programmes like MLSE Launchpad operate, and the significance of SFD for and within urban communities.
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 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 | 0.010 | 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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it