MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387397861 · doi:10.1353/nin.2023.a903316

The 1880 Natick Boarding House Nine

2023· article· en· W4387397861 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Woody Eckard

Bibliographic record

VenueNine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAmerican Sports and Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeagueCensusBasketballClubMinor (academic)Quarter (Canadian coin)DemographyGeographyMedicineSociologyPolitical sciencePopulationArchaeologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 1880 Natick Boarding House Nine Woody Eckard (bio) In mid-June 1880, a small hotel in the town of Natick, Massachusetts had nine "base ballists" living there as boarders. They were all members of the Natick Base Ball Club, a minor professional team active May through July. No fewer than seven of these men also played Major League Baseball, as did two others on the team earlier and later that year. One member has been honored by the Baseball Hall of Fame, though not for his Natick exploits. This article introduces the players, then explains the unusual circumstance of an entire team staying at the same boarding house. Next, the article describes the Natick's 1880 season and the careers of the major leaguers, providing a window to the operation of "minor league" teams and player career paths. The individual details in an 1880 US Census document, including full name, age, and state or country of birth, allow accurate player identification and linkage to major league profiles on baseball-reference.com. Last, we present evidence of an apparent unfortunate outcome of the close quarters living that resonates in our current pandemic age. the natick nine While conducting unrelated research on Ancestry.com, the author happened upon a Natick US Census document from June 18, 1880 describing the persons staying at a small boarding hotel.1 The document lists the proprietor Daniel Sheehan and his family. Next are nine "boarders" who all identify their occupation as "base ballist." Table 1 lists the ball players in alphabetical order with related information from the Census document. The document also indicates that a few other persons lived at the hotel. Of course, nine baseball players listed together suggests the possibility that this is an entire team. Figure 1 shows a brief summary of the Natick Club's 1880 season, published in the August 28 New York Clipper, that lists the primary nine players and their stats.2 Eight of the boarding hotel ball players match the Natick players listed in the summary. The missing player, Stephen Dignan, shows up in a June 4 Natick box score from The Boston Globe of June 5. Thus, all nine of [End Page 100] the boarding house "base ballists" were members of the Natick Base Ball Club. Click for larger view View full resolution Table 1. The Sheehan boarding hotel "base ballists" The Census document indicates that all the players were single, and all but one aged twenty-four years or younger. Seven of the nine Naticks were Irish: one was born in Ireland and six with one or both parents born in Ireland. Of the seven US natives, six were born in Massachusetts and the seventh (Robinson) in Pennsylvania. The Natick Bulletin of May 21 described player origins.3 Cronin, Donovan, McLaughlin, and Shaunessy were from small towns in eastern Massachusetts, and the remainder were mostly "Boston boys." Click for larger view View full resolution Fig. 1. Summary of the Natick Club's 1880 season, with player stats, from the New York Clipper, August 28, 1880. The financial structure of the Natick Club could not be gleaned from newspaper searches. The players were no doubt compensated, but on a small-town club, fixed salaries were unlikely given attendance uncertainties. Natick's 1880 population was 8,112 persons. A gate-sharing "cooperative" arrangement was more likely, or perhaps salaries on a week-to-week basis. A Natick newspaper article advertising the May 29 game with Hudson mentions an admission fee of twenty-five cents.4 [End Page 101] Natick also had a baseball club in 1879. However, only one player carried over to 1880 (Pettee) based on 1879 box scores. There was no baseball club in Natick in 1881, perhaps because the 1880 club disbanded early for lack of fan support (see below). why all nine at one hotel? And now to the key question of how an entire team came to be billeted at a single small hotel. As it happens, the answer is linked to the question of who managed the Naticks. The May 28 Natick Bulletin stated, without elaboration: "Mr. Sheehan is the manager." Is this the Daniel Sheehan who ran the hotel? Confirmation...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0720.015

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNineSame topicAmerican Sports and LiteratureFrench-language works237,207