The Crawford Report's ideology and strategies, should and can it be applied to Canada's high performance sport system?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In August 2008, a newly elected Australian Government invested $1 million to have an independent sport panel investigate the state of the Australian sport system and to make recommendations on how the Australian Government can prepare for the challenges it might face in the future in both the community and elite levels of sport. The report was called the "Crawford Report". The report concluded that sport ideology in Australia should focus more on the health and longevity of its citizens through sport and physical activity rather then focus on primarily the performance results of Australian National Teams at the Olympics. The Crawford Report's recommendations to the Australian Government were to direct more resources towards sports that attract high participation and are part of the national ethos (sports such as Rugby League and Union, Australian Rules Football (AFL), and Cricket).\nHigh performance sport is defined as the elite level of sport within a country. In Canada, the Canadian high performance system consists of organizations such as Sport Canada, Own the Podium, the Canadian Olympic Committee, and Canadian Sport Centres.\nDoes the Crawford Report's ideology and strategies fit into the Canadian sport policy, which follows the four pillars of: Participation (to increase the number of Canadians participating in sport); Excellence (improve Canada's international results); Capacity (strength athlete and participant sport based development system); Interaction (coordinated and connected Canadian sport system (Commonwealth Games Canada, 2009).\nTo answer this, a secondary data analysis methodology was used. The main documents analyzed were the Crawford Report, internet sources and academic journals on the Australian High Performance Program; the Australian Sport System; the Australian Olympic System; the Canadian High Performance Program; and the Canadian Sport System. A content analysis strategy was used to breakdown and analyze these documents.\nThe research concluded: high participation sports (defined by number of registration) in Canada are Olympic sports, Canadian high performance sports should not be focused on redirecting money but rather determining strategies on how to increase funding, there should be an emphasis by Sport Canada on developing strategies to increase the participation rate of low participation sports, the Crawford Report's strategies and ideology would not significantly enhance the excellence, capacity, and interaction of the Canadian high performance system, Canada can learn several lessons from Australia (ie. the focus on funding and support for sport and physical education from the federal government, the entrenchment of sport and physical education into the Australian's lifestyle).
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 | 0.019 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".