Engaging in Socially Just Youth Sport Inquiry: Critical Interrogations and Possible Pathways for Youth Sport Scholarship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Youth sport scholars continue to advocate for the use of social inquiry to foster a more socially just society. The purpose of this critical commentary is to provide insights concerning how youth sport scholars can engage in socially just inquiry processes. To achieve these purposes, several suggestions are proposed regarding how youth sport scholars, regardless of the methodology and methods they use, can deliberately engage in inquiry through socially just processes. These ideas are grounded in four key components of the dynamic inquiry process: (a) scholars’ ontology and positionality, (b) the foundations of the inquiry process, (c) data collection and analysis, and (d) results and their implications. Ultimately, in attempts to investigate contemporary realities of youth sport, a diversity of complex challenges within a dynamic sociopolitical climate awaits those vested in social-justice promotion. To address such demands, equally nuanced approaches are necessary.
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 | 0.080 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.099 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".