MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400512372 · doi:10.1080/19406940.2024.2378139

Canadian national sport organisations’ eating disorder-related policies and practice guidelines: a summative content analysis

2024· article· en· W4400512372 on OpenAlexaffabout
Olivia Feng, Lindsay R. Duncan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sport Policy and Politics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummative assessmentContent (measure theory)Content analysisPsychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceSociologyPedagogySocial scienceFormative assessmentMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Athletes are at significant risk of developing eating disorders (EDs). To address EDs in sport, policies can support the prevention, management, and return to sport following EDs. Although Canadian National Sport Organisations (NSOs) must comply with a universal code of conduct to address maltreatment in sport, there may be a need for additional policies and guidelines to address EDs. The purpose of this study was to examine the scope and content of ED-related policies and practice guidelines within Canadian NSOs. We searched all publicly available policy and guideline documents from Canada’s 64 NSOs and screened them for keywords related to disordered eating, body image, nutrition, diet, and exercise, yielding 98 policies and 39 guidelines. We conducted a summative content analysis to examine the contextual use of our keywords and the sociocultural implications of such use. No NSO had specific policy or practice guidelines addressing EDs. Policies described body shaming-related maltreatment using standard language from the universal code of conduct. Within guidelines, ED-related topics were discussed in relation to mental health, athlete development, nutrition, coaching female athletes, positive body image, and weight management. Comparing content within policies and guidelines revealed a lack of coherence, wherein policies outlined ‘what not to do’ but guidelines did not provide adequate guidance on ‘what to do’, drawing instead on weight-normative and gendered discourse to address ED topics. This study provides insight into the current state of systemic (in)action surrounding EDs in Canadian sport and serves as a preliminary step towards the development of ED policy.

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)0.001
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 score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.352 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sport Policy and PoliticsSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207