MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982205219 · doi:10.1080/09523360600832411

Conflicts of 1930s Japanese Olympic diplomacy in universalizing the Olympic Movement

2006· article· en· W1982205219 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sandra Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of the History of Sport · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiplomacyState (computer science)Political scienceNegotiationAmbush marketingChinaMedia studiesEconomic historyLawHistoryPoliticsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper argues that the Tokyo campaign became meaningful to Japan not only because the Tokyo Olympics represented an avenue of continued cultural diplomacy for 1930s Japan, but also because the bid effort became enveloped by the larger issues that confronted inter-war Japan. The Tokyo campaign actively challenged the universalistic claims made by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and argued that the Olympic Games would not be truly universal until they were held outside the West. The campaigners for the Tokyo Olympics worked for several years with novel forms of Olympic diplomacy, which included state-to-state negotiations and an all-expense-paid trip for the IOC President to Japan. The IOC responded by selecting Tokyo to be the inaugural Asian Olympics, the first held outside Europe and the United States. The success of the Tokyo bid for the 1940 Olympic Games was ultimately predicated on the fact that for both Japan and the world in the 1930s, the Olympics could no longer be considered solely as a Western monopoly.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.010
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of the History of SportSame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207