MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1679678517 · doi:10.2979/jsporthistory.42.1.87

Diffusion and Discursive Stabilization: Sports Historiography and the Contrasting Fortunes of Cricket and Ice Hockey in Canada’s Maritime Provinces, 1869-1914

2015· article· en· W1679678517 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John G. Reid, Robert D. Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sport History · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoriographyCricketIce hockeyNegotiationAgency (philosophy)Period (music)Situational ethicsHistorySociologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceAestheticsLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Engaging with the historiography of sport diffusion, and taking two major sports as divergent case studies, this essay explores the process of discursive stabilization that drew upon a broad complex of social and cultural antecedents. While more generalized organizational and institutional factors were important influences on the contrasting evolutions of cricket and ice hockey in Canada’s Maritime provinces during a period of intense social and economic change, nevertheless the emergence of each sport had a profoundly cultural and discursive character. The two sports had affinities in their organizational development but differed both in their negotiation of social differentiation and in the surrounding discourses that developed. In historical and historiographical contexts, both sports demonstrate the crucial influence of societal complexity and local agency in shaping the patterns by which any sport is diffused.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0140.022
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sport HistorySame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207