An exploration of Canadian multisport service organizations’ response to healthy living mandate: integrating institutional and archetype theories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sport’s social context has become increasingly marked by concerns for sedentary lifestyles and subsequent health issues. The current Canadian Sport Policy 2012 acknowledges this problematic rate of sedentary living across Canada and as such, mandates sport promotion and healthy living outcomes. This study seeks to understand how sport organisations are incorporating healthy living into their agendas as per their policy mandate. More specifically, this study explores (1) sources of health-related institutional pressures for Canadian Multisport Service Organizations (MSO); (2) how Canadian MSOs are responding to health-related institutional pressures; (3) and the different organisational forms that may shape MSOs’ responses. We capitalise on both institutional and archetype theories to create a robust approach to examine response dynamics within the MSO environment. Core data sources included policies, reports, e-survey data, and MSO organisational documents. Our findings show that regulative (from legal, political, and financial sectors), normative (social sector), and internal organisational pressures were all observed to mandate and/or expect sport organisations to contribute to health outcomes. MSO responses were heterogeneous, with defiance being the most frequently observed response. Findings further suggest that a scattered allocation of MSOs across Canadian Sport Policy (2012) objectives and system-level structural and financial mechanisms may have impacted organisational capacity to comply with institutional pressures.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".