Perceptions of Institutional Resource Inequities at FCS and Low-Major NCAA Programs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study delves into the perceptions of student-athletes from Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) and low-major NCAA Division I programs, regarding the disparities in institutional resources. Employing a grounded theory approach, the research compiles data from interviews, questionnaires, and focus groups involving 81 student-athletes across four different universities. It highlights the perceived inequities in resources, such as facilities, equipment, and support staff, alongside the effects of these disparities on athletes’ health, recruitment, mental wellness, and academic achievement. The findings suggest a profound impact of resource inequities on the competitive and personal development of student-athletes. This research contributes to the ongoing dialogue on equity in collegiate athletics, providing insights that could guide policy and resource allocation decisions to promote a more equitable environment for student-athletes across various divisions. It also introduces the development of a new theory referred to as institutional athletic privilege.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it