Football, Nationalism, and Protectionism: The Federal Defence of the CFL Football League
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1974, Canada's Liberal minority government acted to protect the Canadian Football League (CFL) from competition by introducing Bill C-22, which promised harsh penalties for anyone operating a football franchise connected to a foreign-based league or team.This legislation was the culmination of a series of measures by which the government had protected the CFL in the early 1960s and 1970s.A number of factors combined to prompt government involvement.From its earliest days, Canadian football was a nationalist concern.The desire to create a distinctly Canadian pastime led early organizers to differentiate it from English rugby and American football by developing and defending distinctive rules for the game.Football associations developed as domestic rather than cross-border organizations, fostering a congruence of the national territory and the Canadian version of the game.The organizational structure of Canadian football reinforced the east-west axis of transcontinental transportation and communications infrastructure fostered by the state since Confederation.Team and regional rivalries became a staple of print and radio news and commentary, integrating football into the national discourse.Following the Second World War, the identification of Canadian football with the Canadian nation intensified as televised games provided fans with more shared experiences of the only Canadian sports league.Fuelled by concerns about growing American cultural influence, nationalism was on the rise in Canada.This, accompanied by the building of the welfare state resulted in more government intervention than countenanced previously.The government introduced policies designed to protect Canadian culture, and, by extension, national identity.When unity became a concern, it 21 Richards and Pratt include geography and climate as factors.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".