MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122731135 · doi:10.1080/09523367.2020.1854230

Summer Meets Winter: African Nations Participating at the Winter Olympics, 1960–2018

2020· article· en· W3122731135 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cobus Rademeyer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of the History of Sport · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyQuarter (Canadian coin)SnowAthletesPolitical scienceMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A record number of eight African countries competed at the 2018 Olympic Winter Games in PyeongChang, South Korea despite Africa being regarded as one of the hottest continents in the world. The continent’s almost complete lack of snow or ice weather conditions is the most obvious hurdle to African winter Olympic hopefuls. Although athletes from this continent compete successfully at the summer Olympics, very few African countries send teams of athletes to compete at the winter Olympics on a consistent basis. By 2014 less than a quarter of the fifty-four countries in Africa had ever competed at the winter Olympics, yet the history of African countries participating at the winter Olympics dates back almost six decades. The first appearance of an African country at the winter Olympics was at the 1960 games in Squaw Valley, USA, when South Africa participated for the first time. Since 1984, at least one African nation has competed at each subsequent winter Olympics. The lack of climate for winter sports, such as bobsleigh, skiing and snowboarding, limits the level of participation in winter sports. However, globalization and the relatively limited access to tertiary institutions in Africa have brought young African athletes in contact with many forms of winter sport while studying or working abroad, predominantly in the northern hemisphere.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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