Building a Platform for Advancing Women's Engagement in Sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women are active participants in sport, as administrative leaders, coaches, and elite athletes, and it is important to understand and continue to advance their engagement and experiences in that realm. Women have made gains in leadership but their actual progress towards such roles continues to be slow-paced (Burton & Leberman, 2017), indicating that additional action is still needed. Further, women’s experiences in sport roles are critical to their performance in, and for the organization, and to their personal job satisfaction (Kanter, 1977, 1993). Yet, they may face several challenges in their work, that may reduce their autonomy in relation to their work and impact their experiences and their sense of general wellbeing. An individual’s financial wellbeing is an important contributor to their overall wellbeing (Capic et al., 2018). It is important to recognize how elite athletes, and especially women athletes, navigate and make decisions to develop and sustain their finances in support of that wellbeing. This dissertation addresses these research areas and provides evidence from three studies on women’s engagement in sport. The conceptual model of the strategic business case developed in study 1 highlights evidence of the impact of women leaders on organizational practices, in pursuit of certain strategic priorities, for national sport organization (NSO) goal achievement. Study 2 provides insights to women’s empowerment in NSO sport leadership and organizational conditions that support that. Study 3 provides an understanding of the financial wellbeing of Canadian national team athletes and identifies particular money use and management behaviours that predict that wellbeing. The findings advance understanding of women’s engagement and experiences in sport and have implications for Canadian NSOs and multi-sport organizations that are considering the (further) engagement of women. Organizations can better support women, but action must be based on a strong platform of understanding what support is needed and how it may be enacted. The three studies in this dissertation provide that platform, to better support organizational efforts for the increased engagement of women in sport.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.006 |
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".