Equity, diversity, and inclusion in sports analytics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents a landmark study of equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in the field of sports analytics. We developed a survey that examined personal and job-related demographics, as well as individual perceptions and experiences about EDI in the workplace. We sent the survey to individuals in the five major North American professional leagues, representatives from the Olympic and Paralympic Committees in Canada and the U.S., the NCAA Division I programs, companies in sports tech/analytics, and university research groups. Our findings indicate the presence of a clear dominant group in sports analytics identifying as: young (72.0 %), White (69.5 %), heterosexual (89.7 %) and male (82.0 %). Within professional sports, males in management positions earned roughly $30,000 (27 %) more on average compared to females. A smaller but equally alarming pay gap of $17,000 (14 %) was found between White and racialized management personnel. Of concern, females were nearly five times as likely to experience discrimination and twice as likely to have considered leaving their job due to isolation or feeling unwelcome. While they had similar levels of agreement regarding fair processes for rewards and compensation, females “strongly agreed” less often than males regarding equitable support, equitable workload, having a voice, and being taken seriously. Over one third (36.3 %) of females indicated that they “strongly agreed” that they must work harder than others to be valued equally, compared to 9.8 % of males. We conclude the paper with concrete recommendations that could be considered to create a more equitable, diverse and inclusive environment for individuals working within the sports analytics sector.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".