Sport management or the management of sport? Reframing the theory debate
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
As a field, sport management is arguably divided into two perspectives related to theory: sport management or the management of sport. This division hinders the development and credibility of the field in the broader academic community. Thus, we adopt a perspective style of theorizing to critically discuss and reframe the sport management theory debate, suggesting an integrated perspective in the process. Each perspective’s central tenets, supporting arguments, and contentions are presented. The Sport-Management Theory Development Framework is proposed, which combines each perspective and includes four main facets: the what; the how; the why; and the who, when, and where of sport management research. Sport management scholars can use the proposed conceptual framework to critically appraise and advance research to establish a credible body of knowledge in sport and beyond. The framework allows the field’s existence to be defended according to its distinct knowledge, thus demonstrating its value in academia.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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