ArticlePloS one2025
Requiem of Olympic ethics and sports' independence: A panel-data socio-cultural analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper suggests a theoretical model (a production function) and an empirical model (Stochastic Frontier Analysis) to empirically evaluate the main impacts of socio-cultural contexts on the effectiveness of some sport policies and to address some main methodological problems of sport sociology. As for methods, I identified 2 governmental ethics to and through sport (national pride NP, social cohesion SC), by measuring achievements in terms of alternative indexes based on Olympic medals (gold, total) from 1994 to 2024. I applied panel-data, by focusing on 4 alternative estimations (individual and collective variables for both NP and SC). I introduced 2 sport policies (a quantitative policy aimed at SC, a qualitative policy aimed at NP), by distinguishing cultural approaches to body in terms of 5 different secular ethics (Aristotle, Husserl, Deleuze, Heidegger, Descartes) and 5 different religious ethics (Buddhism, Christianism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism). I referred to income level and income inequality (i.e., GDP and Gini index), to depict alternative social contexts. I applied country dummies, to represent alternative historical and institutional contexts. As for results, if governments pursue SC, there is significant consonance with more communitarian religions and dissonance with more individualistic religions (to a greater extent at a collective level), whereas religions do not affect the effectiveness of sport policies if governments pursue NP. If governments pursue NP, there is significant consonance with secular body approaches deemphasising mind over body (at an individual level only), whereas if governments pursue SC, there is significant consonance with Deleuze, Heidegger and Descartes and dissonance with Husserl (to a smaller extent at a collective level). In summary, this paper empirically highlights the social and cultural contexts affecting some sport policies, by providing a quantitative methodology to identify groups of countries with institutional or historical peculiarities, to be studied by sport sociology with complementary qualitative methodologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.