MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2151351425 · doi:10.1353/nin.2007.0004

Judge Landis Takes a Different Approach: The 1917 Fixing Scandal between the Detroit Tigers and the Chicago White Sox

2007· article· en· W2151351425 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

venuePublié dans une revue dont le pays d'attache est le Canada.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueNine · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueAmerican Sports and Literature
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLeagueWhite (mutation)PopularityWildnessPolitical sciencePsychologyHistorySocial psychologyLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Judge Landis Takes a Different Approach:The 1917 Fixing Scandal between the Detroit Tigers and the Chicago White Sox Lowell L. Blaisdell (bio) The early twenty-first century witnessed the arrival of a new major headache for baseball, namely, evidence that some players had turned to steroids as performance enhancers. Nearly a century earlier, baseball had to deal with scandals concerning the likelihood that games were not fairly contested and had prefabricated winners and losers.1 Both problems share the difficulty of locating convincing evidence of guilt, and they both also offer insight into baseball's ability to regulate itself.2 Fixing cases also raise the specter of the game's reduced popularity. Proving a fix is, obviously, difficult without confessions from the participants. However, exceptionally inept play—out of keeping with the players' or the team's normal performance—arouses suspicion. In the Deadball Era, the pitchers and catchers were most easily able to affect game results through unusual wildness, extreme ineffectiveness, and—in the case of catching—allowing wholesale larceny to opposing base runners. Lastly, the existence of a monetary or psychological motive for playing less than one's best added a powerful reason to fear chicanery.3 Over the Labor Day weekend of 1917, a series took place in Chicago between the White Sox and the Detroit Tigers that raised a host of questions much later. The games had an important bearing on the American League race. At the start of the series, the White Sox had a three-and-a-half-game lead on the Boston Red Sox—comforting, but by no means safe. The White Sox went on to sweep the series with Detroit, winding up six and a half in front of Boston and close to home free for the pennant.4 In late December 1926, the two leading, banished conspirators of the fixed 1919 World Series, Chick Gandil and Swede Risberg, emerged from their exile to announce that the 1917 White Sox–Tigers Labor Day weekend series had been rigged. At the end of that season, the Sox [End Page 32] players had presented a payoff to their Labor Day opponents. The cache was distributed seven ways among the Tiger players.5 To handle the problem that the two exiles had raised, baseball's first commissioner, retired federal judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, convened a set of hearings over several days in Chicago, to which he summoned thirty-five or more players and ex-players from the two teams. The White Sox manager of 1917, Pants Rowland, and his former coach, Kid Gleason, were also in attendance.6 Landis served not only as judge but also as prosecutor, defense attorney, and jury. How these functions were defined, he alone decided. Further, the evidence consisted of oral testimony only. When the hearings began, Risberg, the instigator of the crisis, spoke first. On January 1, 1927, he recited his story in Landis's office; in addition to the commissioner, a dozen reporters and fellow "Black Sox" Buck Weaver were present. As Risberg told his tale, Weaver nodded in agreement to most of what he had to say.7 On January 5, during the public hearings that followed, Risberg repeated his account with all the other invitees present. Gandil first submitted a sworn affidavit, which was printed in the Chicago Tribune, and on January 6 he offered his testimony with all of the others present.8 Risberg, who had an impetuous disposition, easily exaggerated and jumped to conclusions. In contrast Gandil testified matter-of-factly and offered a plentitude of details that, when put into context, rang with authenticity. Moreover, among the many witnesses, Gandil alone conceded that he might be in error regarding some of the details and allowed for various shades of understanding and intention. "Sloughed Off" The gist of the accusations was that the Tigers had deliberately "sloughed off" the two doubleheaders played on September 2–3 and that the White Sox players knew or strongly suspected that their opponents were playing with unbelievable ineptitude. At the season's end, nearly all of the Pale Hose contributed to a purse of about $850 for their nominal foes. The two accusers made conflicting statements. For...

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.

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: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,736
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

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 technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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 Opus0,014
Tête enseignante GPT0,204
Écart entre enseignants0,190 · 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