MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294824432 · doi:10.3138/jcs.47.2.29

1974 WHA All-Stars vs. the Soviet National Team: Franchise Recognition and Foreign Diplomacy in the “Forgotten Series”

2013· article· en· W2294824432 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jay Scherer, Hart Cantelon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummitDiplomacyPolitical scienceCommunismPoliticsForeign policyPolitical economyGoodwillEconomic historyLawSociologyHistoryEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unlike the iconic 1972 Summit Series, the 1974 Series between the Soviet Union and Team Canada—this time a national team consisting solely of World Hockey Association (WHA) players—remains largely a Canadian folklore footnote. In this essay, the authors hold up the 1974 Summit Series for critical reflection by focussing on three interrelated themes to reveal the competing political-economic, cultural, and diplomatic interests that were at stake in this largely forgotten event. First, they provide a political-economic analysis of the emergence of the WHA and the league’s objectives for the 1974 Summit Series. The authors then offer an analysis of the role of the second Summit Series as an instance of “hockey diplomacy,” a component of Prime Minister Trudeau’s broader foreign policy agenda, which included improved bilateral relations with Moscow. Finally, the authors examine the significance of the 1974 Summit Series as part of the foreign policy initiatives of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Despite the stated diplomatic ambitions of both Canada and the Soviet Union, though, the 1974 Summit Series (like its 1972 predecessor) ended in violence, politicking, and accusations of unsportsmanlike behaviour, and would mark the finality of this specific bilateral model of sporting exchange to facilitate cultural contact and goodwill between both nations in the Cold War.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207