Sport for development in German development cooperation: early and unknown efforts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The early involvement some Western liberal states, such as Norway and Canada, in the field of Sport for Development (SfD) is well known, with both countries regarded amongst the pioneers in this area. In contrast, Germany’s early investments in the field are not widely known, in part due to deficiencies in documentation and publication. This paper will not only challenge the deficient historical documentation on the subject but will also provide a preliminary descriptive account of the factors that have driven investment or withdrawal from the SfD sector within Germany. This will be set against a broader global context and in relation to key turning points affecting the field. Based on a literature review and content analysis, the results trace the chronological course and development of SfD in Germany in three phases, where the popularity of sport as a developmental tool is subject to strong fluctuations. Additionally, German efforts in SfD have differed from international trends, particularly in the early adoption of sport in German development cooperation in the mid-1970s and the constraints observed during SfD’s international growth in the 2000s. Key implications of this paper include highlighting the strong influence of domestic politics on SfD funding and activity, and formally documenting the breadth and scale of German SfD efforts. Overall, this paper provides a foundation for further work looking at German international SfD efforts, as well as future consideration of the role of national politics in SfD funding.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".