MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985883599 · doi:10.1080/09523360601005413

Crabs in the grey cup: Baltimore's Canadian football Sojourn, 1994–95

2006· article· en· W1985883599 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charles J.D. Kupfer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of the History of Sport · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFootballLeagueParochialismMilitary BaseCompetition (biology)American footballNationalismPolitical scienceHistoryMedia studiesSociologyLawPoliticsPublic administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the early 1990s, Baltimore had a problem: replacing its professional football team, which moved to Indiana in 1984. Fans, politicians, and entrepreneurs plotted, begged, and spent millions trying to gain a replacement. But the National Football League was diffident. With scads of ardent civic suitors, the NFL played hard-to-get. By 1994, Baltimore remained on the outside, feeling desperate. At the same time, North America's “other” professional football operation, the Canadian Football League, faced troubles, too. Older than the more high-profile NFL, the CFL lagged behind its media-savvy American counterpart. Across Canada, the CFL discerned disturbing signs of ennui in its fan base. The solution came suddenly: expand the CFL into the United States, injecting elements of nationalistic competition into the staid league, and granting pigskin-hungry American cities teams to call their own. What followed was a brief, bizarre, and culturally significant episode pin North American sport history. The CFL added five American franchises, while fretting that its distinctively Canadian identity might dilute or evaporate. Most American franchises met scant fan approval. Only in Baltimore did the experiment succeed, because there singular conditions brewed a blend of civic parochialism matching Canadian nationalism.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of the History of SportSame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207