MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186464629 · doi:10.18060/24812

Actually, Esports Is Sport

2021· article· en· W3186464629 on OpenAlexaff
Michael L. Naraine

Bibliographic record

VenueSports Innovation Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Games and Media
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPARRYMythologyArgument (complex analysis)AestheticsSociologyEpistemologyHistoryPhilosophyComputer scienceClassics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2019, Jim Parry, a sport philosophy and Olympic scholar, wrote an article entitled “E-sports are not sports”. While their position is admirable, their commentary is rife with inaccuracies. In short, Parry panders two key myths that sour a balanced discussion of esports as a sport: (1) esports is seeking to become an Olympic sport, and (2) esports does not fit the definition, however arbitrary, of sport. In this response piece, both myths are dispelled and, ultimately, esports is positioned as a form of modern sport that should be accepted (but perhaps not actively supported) by traditionalists. The argument is made that sport can fall into either traditional or modern forms, and that given more technological innovations are on the way, it is critical that sport is not restrictive and remains inclusive to new forms.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.311
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSports Innovation JournalSame topicDigital Games and MediaFrench-language works237,207