Scoping review of literature and systematic search of web-based resources: parasport classification instructions, experiences, and outcomes
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
While classification is essential to parasport, members of the Paralympic Movement commonly report having limited access to information on the topic. Despite increased academic interest in recent years, the total body of research on classification has not yet been mapped or documented. To assess the breadth of literature on classification, we conducted a scoping review following the protocol set forth by Arksey and O’Malley (Citation2005). Additionally, we completed a six-step systematic online search as outlined by Stansfield et al. (Citation2016) to document the type and quality of information on classification available outside bibliographic databases. The most frequent topics discussed in the literature were (a) coach/classifier roles during classification, (b) athletes’ perspectives on classification, and (c) the influence of classification on athletes’ participation (e.g. on social dynamics, athlete development). Webpages reviewed were of relatively low quality, with <50% reporting authorship, references, or a statement of disclosure. Webpages reviewed were primarily produced by national/international sport organizations and provided more professional (i.e. technical) information on classification than inter-/intrapersonal information or instruction. This review provides insight into the type and quality of classification knowledge available to parasport participants and may inform future research and practice related to parasport at all levels.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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