Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to recent articles by Eric Dunning and Graham Curry, this article presents a wide range of new material from the period 1841 to 1851 in the ‘Origins of Football Debate’, using evidence gleaned from the British Library's digitisation of nineteenth-century newspapers. It responds to the charge that the works of ‘revisionist historians’, John Goulstone, Adrian Harvey and Peter Swain, are misleading and have led to hasty conclusions, and rejects their analysis that argues they are part of an academic community seemingly frantic for working-class influence to the detriment of public schoolboys. The article adds extensive evidence that records a much broader footballing culture across the country in mid-century than previously thought. In so doing, it addresses concerns, which have troubled many scholars, of the alleged disappearance of football in the wider community in the mid-nineteenth century, not least because of the sport's rapid expansion amongst the working and middle classes in the 1870s. The evidence presented does suggest that many forms of football other than folk football or games under the influence of public schools or public schoolboys were played, challenging ‘orthodox’ historian's views surrounding the influence of public schools and public schoolboys on the development of the game.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".