MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2929184593 · doi:10.1080/09523367.2018.1538130

More than a Miracle: The Korean War, Cold War Politics, and the 1960 Olympic Hockey Tournament

2018· article· en· W2929184593 on OpenAlexaff
MacIntosh Ross, Ernest Nagel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of the History of Sport · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical sciencePoliticsContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)World War IINewspaperCold warState (computer science)Economic historyLawPolitical economyHistorySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article documents the transformation of the American national hockey team from a poorly organized initiative into a powerful, partially state-sponsored operation, in the context of the broader geo-political tensions of the Cold War. Although the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and Czechoslovakia are typically portrayed as dubious ‘shamateurs’, paid by their respective militaries to do little but play hockey year round, we argue that the USA engaged in similar activities, albeit on a smaller scale. When the USA won hockey gold at the 1960 Olympics, the American media framed the team's success as a colossal upset of the mighty, military-supported USSR. The evolution of the American team, however, was far more complicated than this simple underdog story suggests. In this article, we use historical newspapers, sporting magazines, and government documents to illustrate the American government’s increasing commitment to international sporting success by examining the tumultuous USA national hockey program from the close of World War II (WWII) to the 1960 Olympics.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.252 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of the History of SportSame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207