Safe sport in university athletics: an analysis of Canadian university athletic policies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduced in Canada in 2019, the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport (UCCMS) represents a key measure outlining standardised prohibited conduct and processes for addressing concerns for sport organisations that receive government funding. While the adoption of the UCCMS has been mandated for national sport organisations, its implementation within other sport sectors, such as universities, remains discretionary. The presence of inadequate safe sport policies and enforcement measures in universities may place Canadian postsecondary student-athletes at risk of harm without recourse or processes for addressing concerns of maltreatment. Hence, the objective of this study is to assess whether Canadian university sport programmes have adopted the UCCMS or aligned their sport policies with the UCCMS. Furthermore, this study aimed to examine the extent to which university sport policies adhere to recommended standards for addressing safe sport concerns, including the implementation of transparent and independent reporting mechanisms. In total, 39 Canadian university websites were reviewed. The findings suggest significant variation in whether and how the UCCMS is adopted and implemented. Few universities referenced the UCCMS, and policy coverage of prohibited behaviours was inconsistent. Sanctions for misconduct were often unclear, with limited adoption of UCCMS-recommended measures. Reporting procedures were inadequate, with most Canadian universities lacking outlined reporting protocols. Complaint management pathways also varied, with most universities directing complaints outside athletic departments, but within the university. Standardised safe sport policies and procedures aligned with the UCCMS in Canadian universities are needed to ensure student-athlete safety and well-being.
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 | 0.013 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.043 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".