Building and Re-building a City through Sport: Hamilton, Ontario and the British Empire and Commonwealth Games, 1930–2003
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hamilton Spectator sports editor Melville Marks ‘Bobby’ Robinson was a proud British imperialist who wanted to create a new large sporting event to showcase the Empire's athletes when he helped create the British Empire Games. But when he sought financial support from Hamilton, Ontario's city council for the 1930 hosting of those Games, he used symbols that were less about the Empire and more about what was important to that city's local government officials, urban boosters, and citizens; he promised that the event would pay for itself, that it would promote the city abroad, and that it would leave Hamilton with sports facilities that would be ‘the envy of Canada’. Seventy years later another person from the Hamilton Spectator, its publisher Jagoda Pike, evoked Robinson's story when she led Hamilton's bid to once again host those games, now called the Commonwealth Games. That bid relied on themes similar to those used in the past – civic pride, unity, sport infrastructure legacy and economic development. Using urban regime theory as a conceptual framework, we argue that despite the difference in generations, the City of Hamilton has continued to use the Commonwealth Games for the same purpose – city building – and called upon high profile citizens from similar spheres of influence to further the bid.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".