Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Cheap SeatsA Note from the Editor Willie Steele I have no idea what the number of baseball games I've attended in my life might be. Some of my friends and colleagues would probably argue that it's too many, but I'm certain that it's not enough. Once the college season starts, it's not unusual for me to post a sign on my office door informing students I can be found behind home plate, slightly closer to the home dugout on the third base side, two rows back, and two seats over if they need to find me. Thankfully no student has ever had an issue so important that it took me away from a game. But the games I've enjoyed the most over the years are the ones I have had the opportunity to share with friends. This issue of NINE is the first one that is being co-edited by my friend David Pegram. I've known him for several years now, ever since I started attending the annual NINE Spring Training Conference in Tempe, Arizona. Even before we'd met, I knew he was good people because he was wearing a Pirates hat. Having David join the journal as the co-editor is not much different than enjoying a ballgame with a friend. We've gotten to talk through articles, debate the ways this issue will be organized, and discuss the topics each author covers. I'm confident the journal will be better with two of us working on it, and there is no one I can think of more suited for the role than David. We are excited about the material found in this issue of NINE. Joseph Stanton gets things started with his poetry about some of the iconic artwork housed at the Baseball Hall of Fame. If you've ever been there, you will know exactly what he's writing about. If you've not yet visited Cooperstown, Joe's poetry gives you one more reason to make the trip. We are continuing the Loved It/Loathed It feature with two opposing viewpoints of W. P. Kinsella's 1982 novel Shoeless Joe. You might note, however, that we've changed the feature's title to Love It/Leave It since the pieces in this section are never meant to pigeonhole an author into an "all or nothing" type of opinion about a certain baseball book. For reasons that are explained in my [End Page ix] "Love It" piece, I'd not yet read Clayton Trudor's "Leave It" submission when I wrote my thoughts down. No matter how tempted I'd been to ask David to send it to me, that piece remained a mystery to me until I submitted my thoughts on Kinsella's book. At our annual conference in 2023, we were honored to have Ron Rapoport speak about Jackie Robinson. As soon as his talk concluded, there were several people who said, "You need to get that in the journal. That's going to be something people remember for years." We were thrilled when Ron agreed to have us publish "Jackie Robinson Would Have Hated Jackie Robinson Day," which you will also find in the Triple Play section of this issue. Speaking of Jackie Robinson, previous contributor Peter Dreier returns to the journal with his examination of the complex (and often misunderstood) relationship between the Dodgers infielder and athlete-actor-activist Paul Robeson. Roberto Gonzalez Echevarria gives readers his memories of seeing some of the most iconic ballplayers of his youth play in Cuba during the 1950s. Largely based on his personal interviews with these players, Echevarria's article gives us a glimpse into a world often overlooked by baseball fans. And in an interesting combination of history, biography, and good, old fashioned detective work, Rhett Grametbauer introduces you to a baseball player from the World War II era, one not named Feller, DiMaggio, or Williams. In his piece you will learn the story of Johnny Lund and an old baseball that was the catalyst for this article. Sam Zygner and Emalee Nelson each provide a look back at baseball history with their articles about...
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».