An examination of the deprivation amplification hypothesis: an application to GAA pitches in Ireland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Question – This study analyses the levels of accessibility to GAA pitches and aims to discern whether those who live in more deprived areas have worse levels of accessibility, in line with the deprivation amplification hypothesis proposed by Macintyre (2007). The Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) has existed since 1884 and is the governing body for indigenous Irish sports such as hurling and Gaelic football. GAA pitches are quite well dispersed throughout the country, which makes them ideal to gauge the levels of accessibility. \nResults and Findings – The likelihood of a GAA pitch being located in an electoral division is not affected by deprivation. It is found that in the majority of cases those living in more deprived areas do not have worse levels of accessibility to a GAA pitch. Those living in more deprived areas have a shorter distance to travel to a GAA pitch in an urban electoral division, but a longer distance to travel to a GAA pitch in a rural electoral division. \nImplications and Recommendations – The results of this study offer insights into the levels of accessibility for sport facilities in Ireland. These results can inform the strategic decision making of sporting bodies such as the GAA, as well as the Irish government and policymakers in regard to the allocation of sports funding and grants, as well as the location of new sporting facilities.
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 | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".