Propositions and Recommendations for Enhancing the Legacies of Major Sporting Events for Disadvantaged Communities and Individuals
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
This consensus statement is the outcome of comprehensive collaboration through an international working group on the disparities in the legacies of major sporting events, specifically for communities and individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds (CIDBs). The workshop brought together scholars to discuss current challenges and develop four propositions and recommendations for event leveraging, policy stakeholders, and researchers. The propositions included (1) the nature of “disadvantage” needs to be recognized and the specific targeted CIDBs in each event context must be carefully identified or clearly defined; (2) CIDBs should be considered as an integral part of the whole event hosting cycle to ensure legacy inclusivity; (3) dedicated event leverage, sufficient financial backing, and resource commitments for CIDBs are needed; and (4) it is critical to establish a system of legacy governance for CIDBs. The recommendations aim to inform change in practice and ensure lasting positive legacies for the communities that need them most.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it