Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholarly writing on the Olympic Games has diversified quite dramatically in the last 25 years or so. Time was when this writing was mostly done by people (invariably male) who might be characterised as in-house - that’s to say, they were close to and broadly in sympathy with the Olympic movement and its aims. Their work tended to explore in detail the history of the modern Olympics (and particularly the life and work of their chief architect, Pierre de Coubertin) or to ruminate on its changing philosophy; it would be aired at conferences and in specialist journals such as Olympika or the Olympic Review ; it invariably celebrated the Olympics and its writers themselves would often be Olympic officials in their respective countries. Even those critical of some Olympic orthodoxies have nevertheless remained supportive of the modern Olympics. David Young, Professor of Classics at Florida State University, is a case in point. A veteran sceptic of Coubertin’s role and of his claims to have launched an authentic revival of the original Games in ancient Greece (see Mark Golden’s chapter in this book), he nevertheless gave a speech at the Greek Embassy in Washington DC in March 2001, welcoming the award of the 2004 Summer Games to Athens. 1 In general, discussion would be concerned with the what of past Olympic policy and politicking and the whither of Olympic practice and values; it seldom interrogated the Olympics as a social and political phenomenon or touched the question of whether the Olympics were ‘a good thing’. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.570 | 0.399 |
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".