The State of Play Between Managing Major Sports Events and Human Rights: a Scoping Review
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
This scoping review integrates literature from diverse perspectives to better understand when and how management of major sport events promotes or harms human rights. The authors critically review 130 peer-reviewed English language articles to identify conceptual contributions to research and practice. The findings reveal that politics and political reform, legal frameworks, and organizational actions are crucial influences in when and how management of events promotes or harms human rights. The most frequently considered rights in the literature are: equality, human trafficking related, sport as a human right, worker rights, and freedom of residence. Activism for human rights stimulates change within relevant stakeholders via collaboration, naming and shaming, in-public debates, and media coverage. The committed, transparent, and inclusive consideration of human rights in all stages of managing sport events (from bid preparation, bidding, planning, and hosting to postevent leverage) may increase the likelihood that the event has social benefits.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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