The XXI Olympiad: Canada’s Claim or Montreal’s Gain?: Political and Social Tensions Surrounding the 1976 Montreal Olympics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
May 12, 1970 was a day of dual significance for the city of Montreal. This was the day that Montreal was awarded the Games of the 21st Olympiad, the first Canadian city to host the Games. It was also on this day that Liberal Leader Robert Bourassa became Quebec’s 22nd premier. These two portentous events symbolised the unholy union of politics and sports. From that day forward, a bitter clash arose between all three levels of government in Canada - federal, provincial, and municipal - over the planning, organising and ownership of the Games. Although it is widely known that the Montreal Olympics were plagued with issues of mismanagement and overspending, the critical factors that led to this financial fiasco have not been as thoroughly explored. This chapter will examine how the fiscal disarray of the Montreal Games was exacerbated by the politics of Canadian federalism in the 1970s, and how in turn these Games changed the landscape of the Olympic Movement. The Games emerged as a source of tension in the Canadian political system as the federal government, province of Quebec and city of Montreal all attempted to leverage the Games for their own political gain. What was supposed to be the most modest of Games quickly turned into a spending spree and arguably resulted in the Montreal Olympics being better remembered for its billion-dollar debt rather than its electric 15 days of sport. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".