School of Hard Knocks: Exploring how and to what extent universities and colleges in Ontario balance the reputational risks and benefits associated with contact intercollegiate sports
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 exploratory, single-case study investigated how and to what extent leaders in Ontario colleges and universities balance the reputational benefits and risks of contact intercollegiate sports. This study investigated athletics’ alignment with academic mission, how leaders respond to changes in stakeholder and societal values; and how leaders define, assess and respond to risk. To achieve these objectives, the study reviewed theories regarding reputation and reputation management in the context of higher education. It extended these theories into the establishment of identity, organization-stakeholder relationships, assessment of risk, and threat mitigation in the context of intercollegiate athletics. The study examined multiple sources of data including in-depth interviews with athletic directors and deans, a survey to members of the Ontario College Athletic Association; and a content analysis of mission, vision and value statements of institutions represented in the study. The study found that Ontario schools may be vulnerable to changing societal perceptions about risk in contact intercollegiate sports due to limited environmental scanning and limited engagement with stakeholders outside of higher education and athletics. The study may provide insight for academic institutions in Canada to assess academic and athletic value alignment and make changes if gaps are identified to protect reputation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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