American Football and Facilities at the University of Colorado
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study sought to understand more about which individuals or groups influenced the development of the University of Colorado’s (CU) football grounds (i.e., American football) and to determine how their evolving complexity (e.g., increasing size, services, technology, and capacities) shaped the image of an elite institution and the cultural ascension of the Rocky Mountain region in the Western United States. More specifically, the current research showcases how football and early playing grounds served as institutional social anchors and influenced or addressed enrollment growth, cultivated alumni relationships, produced or rallied financial support, and promoted the school. Next, the present study determines whether the various construction projects and renovations of CU football athletic grounds match the larger pattern practiced by other institutions of higher education, both regionally and nationally. Finally, the current research demonstrated that CU used football and its stadia, like other institutions of higher education, as a strategic social anchor for students, alumni, local (i.e., Boulder) community members, and businesses to interact or engage one another. As a social anchor, CU football, and its related facilities, helped the institution create and maintain a unique institutional identity among its competitors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
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".