Community sport organizations, regional governance, and sport policy implementation in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, extensive research exists examining governance at the national level, and the managerial implications for clubs at the community level. However, there is a dearth of research on the role of governance/policy at the regional level. In this brief research report, we examine the role of CSOs as implementers of sport policy in Ontario, Canada. We used a case study methodology to answer two research questions: (1) How do actors from CSO's in Ontario understand their roles in developing sport participation opportunities? and, (2) How do CSOs' institutional and community contexts shape organizational practices and the translation of ideas within sport development? We collected data through semi-structured interviews with 12 managers of CSOs affiliated with the same sport/provincial sport organization. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings indicate that CSOs have limited capacity for adaptation or change and that they experience powerful external pressures and competing demands. This research provides empirical insight into sport policy implementation processes in Ontario and highlights the importance of facility access as well as policy from other organizations/institutions (particularly municipalities and school boards) in shaping CSO practices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".