MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041551223 · doi:10.1525/scq.2020.102.2.201

Review: Dreamers and Schemers: How an Improbable Bid For the 1932 Olympics Transformed Los Angeles From Dusty Outpost to Global Metropolis, by Barry Siegel

2020· article· en· W3041551223 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brad J. Congelio

Bibliographic record

VenueSouthern California Quarterly · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIconCitationScholarshipArt historyDownloadArtLibrary scienceHistoryMedia studiesSociologyPolitical scienceWorld Wide WebComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Book Review| May 07 2020 Review: Dreamers and Schemers: How an Improbable Bid For the 1932 Olympics Transformed Los Angeles From Dusty Outpost to Global Metropolis, by Barry Siegel Dreamers and Schemers: How an Improbable Bid For the 1932 Olympics Transformed Los Angeles From Dusty Outpost to Global Metropolis. By Barry Siegel (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2019, pp. 272, $29.95 hardcover). Brad J. Congelio Brad J. Congelio Brad J. Congelio Is An Assistant Professor Of Sport Management At Kutztown University Of Pennsylvania. He Received His Phd From The University Of Western Ontario, Where He Studied Out Of The International Centre For Olympic Studies. His Research Was The 2013 Recipient Of The Ian Buchanan Memorial Scholarship From The International Society Of Olympic Historians. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Southern California Quarterly (2020) 102 (2): 201–204. https://doi.org/10.1525/scq.2020.102.2.201 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Brad J. Congelio; Review: Dreamers and Schemers: How an Improbable Bid For the 1932 Olympics Transformed Los Angeles From Dusty Outpost to Global Metropolis, by Barry Siegel. Southern California Quarterly 7 May 2020; 102 (2): 201–204. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/scq.2020.102.2.201 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentSouthern California Quarterly Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2020 by The Historical Society of Southern California. All rights reserved.2020 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.839

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouthern California QuarterlySame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207