Climate change versus winter sports; can athlete climate activism change the score?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outdoor winter sports sit on the frontlines of climate change, with athletes subject to increasingly unsafe, unfair and non-ideal competition and training conditions as a result. With athletes’ livelihoods and the future of winter sports on the line, this research investigates if and how winter athletes use their position as public figures, celebrities and role models to challenge the hegemonic structures in sports and society driving climate change. Framed through the broad athlete-activism literature, this study used a qualitative survey of 390 elite winter-sport athletes and coaches combined with eight key stakeholder interviews to understand athlete climate activism. Results demonstrate that winter athletes’ climate action is generally low risk constituting advocacy rather than activism. Athletes express fear of being called out as hypocritical for their high-carbon sport and lifestyle, insecurity over their level of climate education and frustration with the lack of climate action from international- and national-level winter-sport organizations. Scholarly, grassroots and sport-based activism may help athletes engage more effectively in climate activism within and beyond sport.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".