MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049015270 · doi:10.1353/nin.2004.0020

The Golden Age We Have: Who's Knocking It and Why?: Keynote Address to the Seventh Annual NINE Spring Training Conference, March 18, 2000

2004· article· en· W2049015270 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Leonard Koppett

Bibliographic record

VenueNine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSports Analytics and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraftHistoryMedia studiesManagementArt historySociologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leonard was born in Moscow, Russia, not Idaho, in 1923 and came to the United States to New York City with his family in 1928. New York, as you know, was then, much more than now, a center of America's sport and culture, and Leonard was certainly drawn to it. In 1948, two years after receiving a B.A. from Columbia University, he joined the sports staff at the New York Herald Tribune . In 1954 he moved to the New York Post , and in 1963, to the New York Times . In 1979 he heeded Horace Greeley's advice, moving to Palo Alto, California, as a sports editor and columnist for the Peninsula Times Tribune . He assumed emeritus status in 1984 but continued to write for the Times Tribune and, since 1993, for the Oakland Tribune . Leonard Koppett has long been my favorite sports journalist for the very reasons that he enjoys preeminence in his profession. From 1964 to 1984 I devoured his weekly columns in The Sporting News . In a profession dominated by personal opinion and anecdotal evidence, he approaches his craft as a teacher and an educator. I have read most of his twelve books, four of which have been revised and reissued, and they share the same characteristics.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1290.059

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNineSame topicSports Analytics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207