MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392289085 · doi:10.1080/19406940.2024.2323006

Safe sport for whom?: are national sport organisations addressing the truth and reconciliation commission’s calls to action for sport through safe sport policies?

2024· article· en· W4392289085 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nora McRae, Audrey R. Giles, Lyndsay Hayhurst

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sport Policy and Politics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCommissionAction (physics)Public relationsPolitical sciencePublic administrationLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated if National Sport Organisation's (NSO) staff members and safe sport policymakers see safe sport policies as addressing anti-Indigenous racism and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's (TRC) Calls to Action (CTA) for sport through safe sport policies. To do this, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 participants from eight NSOs and examined these NSOs' safe sport policies, including equity, diversity, and inclusion policies. The participants and the documents produced three main discourses: 1) Anti-Indigenous racism policies are not required because safe sport policies are inclusive of everyone, including Indigenous peoples; 2) policies alone are insufficient: Safe sport education and resources are needed to address anti-Indigenous racism; 3) the TRC's CTA are not being treated as a priority by Sport Canada but NSOs want to act on the CTA in consultation with Indigenous organisations. Taken together, these discourses reflect that NSOs are exercising power by leaving anti-Indigenous racism out of safe sport policies and by deciding if, when, and how the TRC's CTAs such as Call 90 are taken up.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.164
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sport Policy and PoliticsSame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207