MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330835181 · doi:10.1080/09523367.2015.1130036

‘Our Victorias Victorious’: Media, Rivalry, and the 1896 Winnipeg-Montreal Stanley Cup Hockey Challenges

2015· article· en· W2330835181 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stacy L. Lorenz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of the History of Sport · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChampionshipMedia studiesNewspaperPrideWorld championshipAdvertisingRivalryParadePolitical scienceHistorySociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analyzes media coverage of the two Stanley Cup hockey challenges played by the Winnipeg Victorias and the Montreal Victorias in February and December 1896. First presented in 1893, the Stanley Cup symbolized the national hockey championship of Canada. The essay argues that newspaper reports and telegraph reconstructions of early Stanley Cup hockey matches brought Canadians into both local and national communities of interest centred on sport, while helping to create a mediated Canadian ‘hockey world’ in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The 1896 Stanley Cup contests were likely the first two games in which the technology of telegraphy was applied to the sport of hockey in such a way that large crowds in distant cities could experience matches as they were being played. In addition, this study examines the regional and interurban rivalries that were expressed through Stanley Cup competition. Newspapers depicted Montreal and Winnipeg hockey teams as representatives of east-west conflict and difference, as well as embodiments of community identity and civic pride.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of the History of SportSame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207