"What Happens Beyond the Talking": A Critical Policy Analysis of Sport and Recreation Equity Policies in Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is a critical policy analysis of a Canadian urban university sport and recreation department’s equity policies. Through a documentary analysis and interviews, this research reveals the connection between what equity policies claim to achieve and the (in)equity experienced by students. Findings demonstrate that the policies advance discourses that evince neoliberal values of competition, commodification, and elitism. They also further notions of institutional excellence in equity, while simultaneously lacking a plan to achieve such equity. The study concludes with recommendations for policies rooted in anti-oppression principles that address the needs of marginalized students through structural change, including a measurable action plan. Equity policies should also name publicly histories of oppression and exclusion in Canada as the rationale for institutional commitments to supporting Muslim, transgender, queer, Indigenous, Black, and racialized students who do not identify with Eurocentric cultures of masculine and competitive athletics, or fitness routines revolving around normative bodies.
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 | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.077 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".