MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361284929 · doi:10.1080/14660970.2023.2194511

Whose interests? Which solidarity? Challenges of developing a European Super League

2023· article· en· W4361284929 on OpenAlex
Francisco Javier López Frías, Sergio González García, Brett A. Diaz

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSoccer and Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDoping in Sports
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Global Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeagueFootballSolidarityPolitical scienceEuropean unionLawEconomicsInternational tradePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the 1990s, rumours of a European Super League (ESL), comprised of the major clubs from England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, have mounted. According to these rumours, this new league would break away from the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA). Many clubs would operate outside the current European federative system, abandoning their national leagues and football federations. An ESL thus conceived would present a menacing alternative to the UEFA Champions League (UCL) and, depending on the format of the ESL, national competitions such as leagues and cups. In this article, we draw on literature in the fields of philosophy and sport law to identify legal and ethical challenges that would result from creating an ESL. Our goal is not to provide exhaustive analyses of the identified challenges. Rather, we aim to examine the challenges to uncover intersections among sport law, sport ethics, and European football.

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.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.270 · 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