A Supplementary Sport? Towards a Historical Analysis of the Development of Badminton in New Zealand, c. 1870–1939
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although badminton has been played in New Zealand for approximately 150 years it has received only minimal attention in scholarly discussions of sport.This paper evaluates the historical development of badminton in New Zealand between 1870 and 1939.It argues that from the last quarter of the nineteenth century badminton was initially played alongside games such as croquet and tennis in mostly private venues as a form of upper-class recreation.It then gained a wider appeal primarily as a winter sport that could be played by tennis players during the off-season.During the interwar period it was promoted as a suitable form of recreation for women because it was non-contact and believed to be not overly strenuous.Although its construction as a useful winter sport for tennis players and a suitable game for women helped badminton achieve a position as a niche sport, such characterizations hindered its further development because it was seen as a supplementary sport to tennis, the then dominant racket sport in New Zealand.Moreover, in comparison to its contemporary racket sports badminton was often criticized as an inferior game.Accordingly, it occupied a somewhat ambiguous place in New Zealand's sporting hierarchy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".