On the topic of education in a corresponsive sport science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If education is the way society produces its future, then what future lies ahead for the sport sciences? Our aim, here, is to think through this question across three interwoven sections. In the first, we consider a future of reproduction through transmission. This future is built upon a dominant, linear, and unidirectional educative model that assumes the instillation of authorised, inter-generationally transmitted, second-hand information. Its goal is to bring a younger generation to a predetermined point of ‘being’ a sport scientist. Yet, despite its dominance, this model brings with it a troubling question: what growth could there be beyond the confines of that which was transmitted by those gone before? In response, section two thinks through an alternative: a futurity of transformation through exposure. This futurity commits to a processual, open-ended and dialogical educative approach. By encouraging people to open-up to others, attuning to their doings while developing the capacity to respond, it promises not an arrival at ends determined from the start, but the sustenance of a correspondence that flows along in possibility of what could become. In section three, we advocate for a futurity of transformation through exposure in the sport sciences by thinking through three sensibilities underpinning its educative promise: (i) response-ability; (ii) differentiation; (iii) curiosity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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, 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".