MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2552398425 · doi:10.1057/978-1-137-46492-7_14

Sochi 2014 Olympics: Accommodation and Resistance

2016· book-chapter· en· W2552398425 on OpenAlexaff
Helen Jefferson Lenskyj

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical sciencePersecutionOpposition (politics)Human rightsLawLegislationDemocracyCeremonyContext (archaeology)PoliticsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2007, when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced that it had awarded the 2014 Winter Olympics to Sochi, critics denounced the organization that defines itself as the ‘moral authority for world sport’ for rewarding a country guilty of widespread human rights violations. Developments in the next six years, culminating in Russia’s 2013 anti-gay laws—broadly worded legislation banning the distribution of ‘gay propaganda’ to minors—demonstrated that critics’ concerns were well justified, as the persecution of gay activists, environmentalists and other dissidents escalated. President Vladimir Putin’s military interventions in Crimea and Ukraine, commencing a few weeks after Sochi’s closing ceremony, shifted world attention from Russia’s domestic human rights abuses to the broader Eastern European context. In March 2015, the assassination of opposition politician and Sochi whistle-blower Boris Nemtsov was emblematic of Russia’s status as a failed democracy, or, as some have argued, a successful totalitarian state. 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 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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.007

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooksSame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207