Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Chicago Cubs will win the World Series again. This is not the speculation of a fan, for, as we all know, fans will speculate about everything and anything when it comes to baseball. Actually, so will the players, owners, and sportscasters. More often than not, they are wrong. Almost always they base their predictions, theories, and comments on emotion instead of PACT. We have seen their theories proven wrong again and again. Fans, owners, and sports journalists have tried to tell us that when a new sports franchise is placed in a city it would help the economy of that city. Economists have proven them wrong. The same group has tried to tell us that disparity in team revenues would make the leagues less competitive. Again, statistical scrutiny proves that just the opposite is true: the more revenue disparity increases, the more competitive teams become. So we have to look at just the PACTS. No speculation. No hubbub. The Cubs will win the World Series again. The World Series was first officially played in 1903, and the Boston Red Sox won it. The BoSox have won five World Series so far (not many lately though). This means we have had the World Series for ninety-eight years, representing ninety-seven titles because of 1994, the year of the strike. There are two very distinct groups in the World Series winner's circle. There are teams who have won the World Series only one time (nine different teams), and there are teams who have won the World Series two or more times (seventeen different teams). Interestingly enough the Chicago Cubs have won the World Series twice. This puts them in the elite group of teams who have won the World Series multiple times. It would seem only logical that if you were a member of this elite group of teams, eventually you would win three World Championships after having won two. A good example would be the Baltimore Orioles, who as of 1970 had only won two World Series titles but who currently have won three titles, based on their triumph in 1983. This is true also of the New York Yankees, St. Louis Cardinals, New York Giants, Boston Red Sox, Pittsburgh Pirates, Los Angeles Dodgers, Cincinnati Reds, Detroit Tigers, and Oakland Athletics. All of these teams had at one time won two World Series crowns and have now won three or more. It should be noted that all of the teams mentioned as winning three or more Series are currently active franchises in the Major Leagues. Of the small group of onetime World Series Championship teams, a group of nine, almost one-half of these franchises no longer exist (the Boston Braves, Brooklyn Dodgers, Milwaukee Braves, and Washington Senators). Further, there have been no fewer than three Braves teams who have won only a single World Series crown (however, never while in the same city). Can you imagine if they hadn't moved? The only team ever to win more than one World Series crown who is no longer in existence is the Philadelphia Athletics, a performance that likely can be attributed to the FACTS that Philadelphia isn't deserving of a World Series crown, let alone a professional baseball franchise. I mean, Philly is known only for cream cheese and for W. C. Fields's not wanting to be buried there. Plus the Philadelphia Phillies have won only a single World Series and are therefore destined to be eliminated from baseball, like 50 percent of the other teams who have won only one title. So, based on these FACTS, my conclusion is that if a team only wins one World Series title, there is a 50 percent chance that they will cease to exist; however, if a team should win a second title, there is a 100 percent chance that they will win a third World Series title (if you don't count Philadelphia, and everyone agrees there is no need to count that city). So there is a 100 percent chance that the Cubs will again win the World Series. This also means that there is a 50 percent chance that the teams who have won the World Series only once will cease to exist. …
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.558 | 0.261 |
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".