Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an age of mass communications, mass marketing, and what an Englishman might describe as massive surge in worldwide interest in his nation's (Hornby 21-24), it is not just football (a.k.a., soccer) that has gone global. Our combined conception of nation-state and hence national identity have followed suit, as developments within academy over last decade would confirm. During that time, interdisciplinary humanities and social science scholarship in and of United States proper has experienced a decisive shift away from self-contained study of toward what scholar John Carlos Rowe terms a Studies. In this new view, geopolitical borders generally - but those of United States in particular - have been translated into permeable contact zones where two-way exchange between proximal native and non-native cultures has achieved kind of normative status to which fans of most international of games long since have adapted (Rowe 51-64).My claim is that two trends - world football's global growth, and Americans' deepening cross-cultural awareness - are mutually reinforcing. On one hand, New Studies' ascendance has been synchronous with football at last finding a U.S. niche. On other hand, close overlap between them suggests a relational co-dependence that warrants our attention. I do not wish in what follows simply to repeat that soccer has come to United States to stay. Instead, I seek to bring to current discussions of Studies as a field, America as a post-national nation, and popular culture as manifested through sport what Brazilians call jogo bonito. Evidence suggests that the beautiful game has impacted United States' sense of itself in relation to its neighbors - intensifying, if not initiating, very border-crossing mentality that now defines cultural studies. Football, in other words, not only has arrived on these shores; it has redrawn America's boundaries and so reconfigured regional meaning of border.***Notwithstanding claims of football's global reach, commentary on its popularity in West has been sporadic. To cite but several examples of sport's hemispheric acceptance, consider that U.S. national squad now has qualified for four consecutive World Cups, football's quadrennial showcase tournament; that Moms have altered country's demographic landscape; and that Major League Soccer (MLS), nation's top-flight league for professionals, celebrated in 2005 its tenth anniversary with addition of two expansion franchises. The foreign import once called soccer today resides somewhere not far from Main Street, and close to U.S. mainstream.In midst of this rezoning, players and spectators on and off pitch have confirmed in arena of sport that aforementioned American paradigm that today permeates university campuses as much as it does contemporary media coverage of football. We might begin at level of language to test this assertion, with following observation: even as an increasingly common phrase like the Americas has begun to collapse semantic distinction between North, South, and Central components of shared longitudinal land mass that is America, football north of Rio Grande, and south of Canada's Hudson Bay, has become futbol among savvy regional (and regionally savvy) enthusiasts. Thus, we now find little hint of irony when non-Latinos roll Latinate expression for football off their tongues; rather, with one loaded vocal gesture, futbol speakers pay what seems to be genuine, if perhaps unwitting, homage to fervor and flair with which Latin Americans historically have celebrated during last century. Witness gleefully trilled r's that broadcasters in Fox Sports' Toronto office indulge in newscast coverage of Argentina's two-legged apertura (opening) and clausura (closing) football seasons as but one instance of this phenomenon. …
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".