Editorial: Protecting the welfare of individuals operating in organized sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issue of physical and mental welfare in sport has gained increasing prominence in recent years, leading various personnel (e.g., the media, professional bodies and researchers) to consider aspects such as safeguarding, clean sport, overtraining, and the wider ethics surrounding the duty of care of those involved in this environment. Given the importance of these aspects, it is unsurprising that researchers as well as professional bodies and sports organizations have tasked themselves with protecting individuals in sport from the harmful effects of wrongdoing and factors which might create significant injury risk (e.g., concussion). As a result, numerous positive advances have been made to understand and improve the welfare and well-being of those in sport, as well as to raise awareness and education at the micro-(e.g., peer-to-peer), meso-(e.g., coach-athlete, coach-parent, parent-athlete), exo-(e.g., professional leagues, national governing bodies), and macro-system (e.g., media and societal views) levels. Despite such positive advances, they have not always been well communicated between system levels of sport or across international perspectives. Therefore, this special topic sought to address these concerns, utilizing various international perspectives to provide recommendations to protect individuals across the sporting systems.In this Frontiers research topic, it is pleasing to see a number of multinational collaborative studies, with our topic including research findings from Canada, the United States of America, and eight European countries. We believe this multinational collaboration illustrates an international research commitment to better understanding and addressing safeguarding and welfare in organized sport. The authors highlighted that despite potential benefits to 110 athlete welfare, the welfare of match officials is risked due to sporting cultures that tolerate abuse. 125We would like to sincerely thank the Frontiers production team, journal specialists, and handling 126 editors. Special thanks to our journal article reviewers from across the globe in offering their 127 voluntary time, expertise and valuable insights. Finally, thank you to all the authors who have 128 contributed in our collective efforts to shine an international spotlight on protecting the welfare of 129 those involved in organized sport. 130
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".