Bibliographic record
Abstract
Common sense, Bernard Suits, and David Best would agree that boxing is a purposive (i.e., nonaesthetic) sport.We argue, on the contrary, that boxing is in fact purposive only in some contexts (i.e., knockout) and an aesthetic sport in others (i.e., decision by judges).This is because boxing judges are empowered to give more points to a fighter not just for the quantity but the quality of strikes and of their performance in the ring in general.In other words, in bouts whose outcomes are decided by judges, a boxer's purpose is not just to land punches, as the manner in which blows are struck (cleanly, with better ring control, etc.)-that is, how a boxer performs-figures into the awarding of points and consequent determination of outcome.This is the very hallmark of aesthetic sports.Boxing should therefore be classified instead as a "purposive/aesthetic" sport: a hybrid category that undermines a pure dichotomy between purposive and aesthetic sports. ResumenBernard Suits, y David Mejor estarían de acuerdo en que el boxeo es un deporte finalista (es decir, no estético).Sostenemos, por el contrario, que el boxeo es de hecho intencional sólo en algunos contextos (es decir, por knockout y un deporte estético en otros (es decir, la decisión de los jueces).Esto se debe a que los jueces de boxeo están facultados para dar más puntos a un luchador no sólo por la cantidad, sino por la calidad de los golpes y de su desempeño en el ring en general.En otras palabras, en combates cuyos resultados son decididos por los jueces, el propósito de un boxeador no es sólo por los golpes, como la manera en que son golpes (limpiamente, con un mejor control del ring, etc.).Es decir, cómo se realiza un boxeador -la adjudicación de puntos y la consecuente determinación del resultado.Este es el sello distintivo de los deportes estéticos.Por lo tanto, el boxeo debe ser clasificado como un deporte "intencional !87
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".