Managers’ perceptions, attitudes, and roles in fostering inclusion and addressing exclusion in competitive sport for youth from low socioeconomic backgrounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose/Rationale To explore the roles and decision-making processes of competitive sport program managers related to the inclusion and exclusion of youth from low socioeconomic backgrounds.Methods This qualitative research employed purposeful sampling to interview 11 Sport-études program managers from 11 different sports. The study, conducted through semi-structured interviews, delves into the perspectives of these managers, emphasizing the exploration of perceptions, attitudes, and roles regarding social inclusion within the context of amateur sport, with a focus on Bourdieu's concepts of habitus, capital, and fields.Findings Program managers’ dispositions toward accessibility issues in competitive sports programs highlight their substantial decision-making powers, which are tempered by external factors such as government regulations and sports federations. The findings underscore how institutional coherence inadvertently contributes to higher participation fees, reinforcing the status quo, and reveal well-intentioned cost-reduction strategies that may perpetuate exclusion.Practical Implications In Canada, where both federal and provincial governments determine sports policies, the interaction between these levels creates a complex environment with conflicting priorities, such as sport performance versus accessibility. Provinces have significant influence over local policies. Understanding how funding and program recognition impact resource allocation is crucial for managers navigating these complex challenges and promoting effective policy outcomes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".