Provincial Sport Organizations’ Perspectives on Rural and Remote Communities in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Actors in Provincial Sport Organizations (PSOs) play an important role in the implementation of sport policy and the development of sport participation opportunities in diverse community contexts. In this study, we examine PSO actors’ understandings of rural and remote communities and how these understandings impact sport policy at the regional level. We employed an instrumental case study methodology. Data were collected through document analysis of organizational strategic plans and semi-structured interviews with 12 decision-makers from PSOs in Ontario. Data were then analyzed using thematic analysis. Preliminary findings indicate that while the needs of rural and remote communities were not necessarily reflected in the formal policies of PSOs, many organizations provided additional resources and training opportunities to support these regions. Additionally, actors from PSOs acknowledged and considered biases held towards rural/remote communities and the role that these biases played in policymaking, for example, related to hosting championships/events. By investigating the viewpoints of PSO actors, we shed light on how institutional factors impact the development of sport participation opportunities in rural and remote areas. Our research highlights the theoretical and practical implications of regions for sport governance within the province of Ontario, and how rural and remote communities are positioned within this organizational field.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".