MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978292216 · doi:10.1080/09523367.2019.1665518

A Distinctly Indian Body? K.V. Iyer and Physical Culture in 1930s India

2019· article· en· W2978292216 on OpenAlexaff
Aishwarya Ramachandran, Conor Heffernan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of the History of Sport · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthosNationalismModernityColonialismAsideMasculinityGender studiesSociologyPhysical cultureHistoryAestheticsLawPolitical scienceLiteratureMedicinePhilosophyPoliticsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Focusing on the career of K.V. Iyer, an Indian physical culturist of international renown, the following paper represents an in-depth discussion of exercise and bodybuilding practices in 1930s India. Through an exploration of Iyer’s life, correspondence and exercise courses, it is argued that Iyer can be used as a prism through which ideas of colonial struggle, nationalism and modernity in India can be explored. Combining Western and Indian thought, Iyer sought to rally Indian men to begin exercising so as to cast aside ill behaviours and rejuvenate the Indian race. Deeply concerned with masculinity, Iyer’s writings were infused with a nationalist ethos informed by scientific ideals. In discussing Iyer’s previously uncovered physical culture enterprise, the paper begins with an overview of physical culture in 1930s India before Iyer’s life and writings are examined. Following this the paper highlights Iyer’s transnational approach, which saw the physical culturist write to others in England and the United States to great acclaim. In doing so, the paper addresses a dearth in the literature surrounding Iyer while contributing new understandings to Indian exercise practices in the mid-twentieth century.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.257 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of the History of SportSame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207