MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2019418254 · doi:10.1353/nin.0.0074

One Man Out: Curt Flood versus Baseball (review)

2009· article· en· W2019418254 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lisa Doris Alexander

Notice bibliographique

RevueNine · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueAmerican Sports and Literature
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFlood mythContext (archaeology)Subject (documents)Supreme courtBiographyLawHistorySociologyArt historyPolitical scienceLibrary scienceArchaeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: One Man Out: Curt Flood versus Baseball Lisa Doris Alexander Robert M. Goldman. One Man Out: Curt Flood versus Baseball. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2008. 158 pp. Paper, $16.95. In 2009, the Veteran's Committee will decide whether Curt Flood should be inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Flood's possible induction has made him a popular research subject: no less than five books have been written about Flood since 2006. Each has its own voice and unique take on Flood and his Supreme Court case. Robert Goldman provides the most recent study, and since this book is part of the University Press of Kansas's Landmark Law Cases and American Society series, it focuses less on Flood's biography and more on the legal aspects of his case. Chapter one provides a brief synopsis of the events leading up to Flood's lawsuit, including the rapidly deteriorated relationship between Gussie Busch and Flood; the trade from St. Louis to Philadelphia; and the early legal wrangling in federal court. The second chapter actually takes a step back and discusses Flood's life before baseball within the context of the Cardinals' integration attempts in the mid-1950s. For readers who are familiar with Flood's resume and baseball's racial history, the chapter sequence works well. However, readers who are unfamiliar with the subject matter could be confused because Goldman explains what Flood did before painting a picture of who Flood was. In the book's preface, Goldman argues that his book "attempts to explain [Flood's] case in both its legal and historical perspective and setting" (xiii). Chapter three brings the reader to Goldman's purpose by discussing the reserve clause, the National Brotherhood of Professional Base Ball Players' challenges, and the early legal battles that pitted players against management. This is where One Man Out distinguishes itself. Most books on Flood casually mention these previous court cases involving baseball and the reserve clause, if they are mentioned at all. Here, readers can sift through approximately eighty years of jurisprudence in forty pages. Goldman provides readers with background information on the Sherman Act as well as a discussion of the central questions and judgment summaries for relevant court cases, from 1890's [End Page 166] Metropolitan Exhibition Company v. Ward to 1919's Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Baseball, et al. to 1953's Toolson v. New York Yankees. Chapter four continues the legal trajectory by discussing cases brought against the NFL and NBA which helped cement MLB's "special" anti-trust status and chronicling the beginnings of the Players Association. The remaining chapters dive into Curtis G. Flood v. Bowie Kuhn et al. Chapter five tackles the trial itself and offers a detailed consideration of Judge Irving Ben Cooper's interesting behavior. While discussing the appeals process in chapter six, Goldman highlights Flood's brief and ultimately unsuccessful return to baseball. Chapter seven walks readers step by step through the entire Supreme Court process. Once again, Goldman offers far more detail about the actual procedures involved in bringing Flood's case before the Court than previous works, including a summary of the submitted briefs from both sides, a brief discussion of the Justices and how they were appointed, and an account of the controversy regarding how Flood's attorney, Arthur Goldberg, himself a former member of the bench, should be addressed during oral arguments. After detailing the oral arguments phase of the process, Goldman presents an inside look into the deliberations based primarily on material from Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong's The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court (Avon Books, 1996). While the information may not give readers any peace of mind regarding the sanctity of the justice system, we learn that the final decision was "the result of several weeks of negotiation, switching sides, and implied 'vote-trading'" (114). Goldman finishes the chapter by outlining the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions in Flood. The final chapter naturally is a "postgame analysis" of the Flood case. Why has this case endured in legal circles? What impact, if any, did this case have on the impending end of the...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,125
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,876

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1250,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,031
Tête enseignante GPT0,245
Écart entre enseignants0,215 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueNineMême sujetAmerican Sports and LiteratureTravaux en français237 207