Quid interpersonal violence in the sport integrity literature? 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
Interpersonal violence (IV) against athletes has gained increased research, policy, and media attention. The purpose of this study is to analyze the scientific sport integrity literature (2010-2020) to better understand (a) to what extent, and (b) how IV has been discussed therein. Implementing Arksay and O’Malley’s scoping review framework, 1,342 studies were identified. Most studies focused on doping (n = 930), and to a lesser extent (illegal) gambling (n = 191), and match-fixing (n = 61). Only 36 studies broadly discussed IV as a sport integrity issue. Further thematic analysis showed that IV is sometimes recognized as a personal and organizational sport integrity threat and as an instrumental facilitator for other integrity breaches. Moreover, the normalization of aggression and violence in sport was a recurring theme, hampering safe, fair, and inclusive sport systems and organizations. To effectively address the issue of IV, this review article advocates for a broad, integral, and holistic sport integrity approach.
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 | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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