MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073207040 · doi:10.1353/his.2012.0033

Global Football: Introduction

2012· article· en· W2073207040 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kathryn McPherson, Stephen Brooke

Bibliographic record

VenueHistoire sociale · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFootballLeagueDisciplinePoliticsMedia studiesSpectator sportGlobePolitical scienceSociologySocial scienceHistoryAdvertisingLawPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global Football: Introduction Kathryn McPherson and Stephen Brooke (bio) CRITICAL analyses of sport have proliferated in recent decades, forging a vibrant new interdisciplinary field called sport studies. Scholars coming from diverse disciplinary backgrounds – ranging from political economy of sport to film studies – have demonstrated the impact of sports, games, and physical cultures on the societies that host them. An older genre of sport studies that tracked developments internal to particular sports, leagues, or institutions has been joined by studies that interrogate how sport reflects wider social and cultural beliefs and how those social and cultural forces define what constitutes sport. Historians have had a strong presence in sport studies. Even a cursory glance at the academic journals devoted to sport history suggests the dynamic state of the field: International Journal of Sport History, the Journal of Sport History, Sport History Review, Sport in History, and Sporting Traditions. A genealogy of Canada’s contribution to this list reflects the transformation of sport history. Sport History Review was founded in 1970 as Canadian Journal of Sport History. Originally dedicated to tracing Canadian athletic traditions and accomplishments, the journal now publishes articles pertaining to sport across the globe, assessing physical cultures, sporting practices, and athletic events ranging from the “big four” of professional sports to recent innovations like Ultimate Frisbee and to the way sport is related to cultural forms such as film and social formations such as national identity. No sport has attracted as much historical attention as modern football, the game North Americans know as soccer. In early nineteenth-century Britain, traditional forms of folk football gave way to the modern game in which the ball was moved by feet, not hands. It was played on a standard sized field and was organized by local associations (the short form of “Assoc.” is believed to be the origin of the term “soccer”) which codified the rules of play. Historians quickly recognized the social forces at work in these developments. Traditional folk football – played over the course of days through town streets and on village squares with players joining and leaving the game as they took breaks for pints of beer at the local pub – no longer suited the new industrial order of enclosure, regulated public spaces, and disciplined work routines. It is true that modern football was designed by and for middle-class and elite men who as “amateurs” could use the game to express their self-discipline, hard work, and respect for rules. But, by the end of the nineteenth century, British men (and some women) [End Page 217] of all classes were playing the modern game, often choosing football over other sports like cricket and rugby which had also been codified, standardized, and thus modernized.1 In his path-breaking study From Ritual to Record: The Nature of Modern Sports, Allen Guttman argued that modern sport was defined by seven characteristics: secularization, equality (on the field, if not always in getting access to the field), specialization, rationalization, bureaucratization, quantification, and record-keeping.2 Following Guttman’s framework, we can see that, over the course of the nineteenth century, a range of sports “modernized.” “Traditional” sports like rugby, baseball, boxing, and horseracing all codified their rules and standardized the size of the field of play and formed organizations to oversee leagues and results, while “newly created” sports like baseball, badminton, and basketball followed suit. Football was not alone in making the transition to a modern game, but it was certainly the first to modernize and the first to “go global.” By 1900, football had been taken up throughout continental Europe, in Latin America, and in newly colonized parts of Africa. The game was often introduced by British sailors, railroad workers, merchants, imperial civil servants, or educators as they waited in port for their ship to sail or tried to convince young boys to attend the local mission school.3 Other times, football moved across national boundaries when men who had visited or been educated in Britain took the new game home with them.4 Once introduced, football quickly became swept up in processes of commercialization, the growth of consumer culture, and intensification of nationalism. Football had a presence on the front...

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1530.076

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistoire socialeSame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207