"Hinchas", "Cracks" and "Letrados": Latin American intellectuals and the invention of soccer celebrity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hasta la tercera d?cada del siglo XX, los intelectuales brasile?os, uruguayos y argentinos tratan el f?tbol deforma principalmente negativa. A partir de los a?os 20, sin embargo, escritores como Juan Parra del Riego, Roberto Arlt, Ezequiel Mart?nez Estrada, Antonio de Alc?ntara Machado, Gilberto Freyre y Gilka Machado empiezan a celebrar a los atletas latinoamericanos (gran parte de ellos provenientes de familias de negros, mestizos e inmigrantes) como emblemas de un individualismo nacional (intuitivo, genial) frente al colectivismo sobrio de los grandes equipos europeos. Las victorias nacionales en el espacio aparentemente nivelador de las competiciones internacionales de la ?poca parecen confirmar sus intervenciones. La celebridad ex?tica elaborada por los intelectuales les permite exhibir su solidaridad con sus otros pr?ximos (B. Sarlo) adem?s de su dominio discursivo de los aspectos peligrosos del deporte, especialmente la percibida vulgaridad de los hinchas populares, aunque estos provengan de las mismas etnias y clases sociales que los propios jugadores. De tal manera, los nuevos fans letrados pretenden justificar su celebraci?n del f?tbol a trav?s de narrativas ficticias en las que el pleno ?xito de los atletas subalternos solamente se consagra por medio de una otredad exaltada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".