MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045349235 · doi:10.1080/17460263.2014.931292

Breaking away from the ‘big boys’? Jamaican and ‘White Commonwealth’ expectations at the 1966 British Empire & Commonwealth Games

2014· article· en· W2045349235 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Dawson

Bibliographic record

VenueSport in History · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommonwealthEmpireWhite (mutation)British EmpireHistoryEconomic historyPolitical scienceMedia studiesSociologyGender studiesLawAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1966, Jamaica became the first nation outside of Britain and its former white dominions to host the Commonwealth Games. Jamaican officials anticipated that hosting the Games just four years after the nation achieved independence would provide the country with an unprecedented opportunity to announce itself to the world and secure valuable economic dividends. Recognising the importance of positive publicity, and the daunting task they faced, Jamaican authorities endeavoured to ensure that the Games were a success. Unfortunately, a number of vociferous officials, athletes and media commentators from the traditional host nations (the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand) were not shy when it came to sharing their views about the hosts' shortcomings. Such complaints expressed a consistent tone of disapproval with three main aspects of the Games: the extent to which they were able to sustain what was understood to be a traditional contribution to Commonwealth unity, the overall organisation of the competitions, and the state of the nation itself. These assessments also reveal a consistent sense of entitlement from the traditional host nations and highlight their sometimes alarmed responses to a changing political and athletic context in which Caribbean and African nations were becoming increasingly powerful.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSport in HistorySame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207