Vertical interlocking and decision making in national and provincial/territorial non-profit sport organization boards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explains the impact of vertical interlocking on national (NSO) and provincial/territorial (P/TSOs) non-profit sport organization board decision making in a federated sport model. Data were collected from six boards in Canada (two NSOs, four P/TSOs) via 36 meeting observations, 18 semi-structured interviews, and over 900 documents. Sixty-six decisions were categorized based on vertically interlocked and non-interlocked boards (three per group). Data were analyzed via an independent sample t-test (derived from a structured observation sheet to score decisions quantitatively) and a codebook thematic analysis. Results demonstrated interlocked boards differed from their non-interlocked counterparts when making decisions regarding the length, delays, interactions, and information sources (i.e., acquisition and use). Theoretically, results provide insights into vertical interlocking’s multi-dimensional impact on decision-making constructs. Practically, NSO and P/TSO boards should perceive vertical interlocking positively, given the ability to access and use information sources not available in non-interlocked boards.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".