Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ranking countries in the Olympic Games by medal counts clearly favors large-population countries over small ones, while ranking by medals-per-capita produces national rankings with very small population countries on top. We discuss why this happens, and propose a new national ranking system for the Olympics, also based upon medals won, which is inclusive in the sense that countries of widely-varying population can achieve high rankings. This population-adjusted probability ranking ranks countries by how much evidence they show for high capability at Olympic sports. In particular, it ranks countries according to how improbable their medal counts would be in an idealized reference model of the Games which posits that all medal-winning nations have equal propensity per capita for winning medals. The ranking index U is defined using a simple binomial sum. Here we explain the method, and we present population-adjusted national rankings for the last three summer Olympics (London 2012, Rio 2016 and Tokyo 2020, held in 2021). If the advantages of this ranking method come to be understood by sports media covering the Olympics and by the interested public, it could be widely reported alongside raw medal counts, thus adding excitement and interest to the Olympics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".