MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386002297 · doi:10.26522/jess.v9i.4396

“It’s still Cleveland baseball”

2023· article· en· W4386002297 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James Bingaman, John Leach

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Emerging Sport Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMajor League Baseball
KeywordsRebrandingLeagueFraming (construction)ClubPrideMedia studiesPolitical scienceAdvertisingSociologyPublic relationsHistoryLawBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the summer of 2021, Cleveland’s Major League Baseball franchise announced the rebranding of the club’s nickname from the decades-long controversial “Indians” to the” Guardians.” The long-standing use of Native American imagery in sport has long been the source of contention, and for this reason, the Cleveland Guardians have continually been in the public eye prior to their rebrand. This article examines both the organization’s rebranding efforts and media coverage surrounding the team’s new identity. Guided by the theory of framing, this study applies themes of sports rebranding to analyze the team’s announcement video and sequentially deploys an inductive approach to identify the media frames present following the rebranding. Three sports rebrand frames were identified from the Cleveland Guardians’ announcement: regional pride, nostalgia, and rebirth. The media response looked at 79 articles and found two higher-order frames - broader movements and branding commentary – with six subcategories. In total, these frames indicated that rebranding efforts sought to center the new identity around the city of Cleveland while deemphasizing damages from the use of derogatory racial Native American imagery. The media response also shows that the rebrand is contextualized through broader movements and is politically contentious. Future directions of framing theory in sports rebranding and the discourse around the use and removal of racial imagery in sports is discussed.

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)0.003
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.294 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Emerging Sport StudiesSame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207