Srovnání olympijského vysílání České televize ze zimních olympijských her 2010 a 2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis principally compares the Olympic broadcasting on the Czech Television covering Winter Olympic Games 2010 in Vancouver and 2014 in Sochi. The first part of the text defines the concept of Olympism, the history of the Olympic Games and the Czechoslovak Olympic Committee, and the current form of the Games and their future. The further analysed Winter Olympics 2010 and 2014 are being briefly described in this section as well. Moreover, the relationship between sport and media, and the media event of the Olympic Games are being defined. Considerable attention is being given to the Olympic Television Broadcasting. Consequently, the history of broadcasting, broadcasting rights, commercialization of the Olympics, their funding, and the function of Olympic Broadcasting Services is being discussed too. The latter part is devoted to the Czech Television, its history and current form as a public service broadcaster. The chapters that deal with an analysis of Olympic broadcasting covering Vancouver and Sochi describe the Olympic teams of the Czech Television in Prague and in the Olympic venue, program schedules, and web specials. The number of broadcasted hours from the Olympics, the costs of broadcasting production, and the viewership are being compared. The Olympic broadcasting from Vancouver was...
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".