MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403761296 · doi:10.2218/forum.1.10034

Remixing Britishness: Affect and National Pride in the London 2012 Olympic Opening Ceremony

2024· article· en· W4403761296 on OpenAlexaff
Claire Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueFORUM University of Edinburgh Postgraduate Journal of Culture & the Arts · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPhilippine History and Culture
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBritishnessPrideAffect (linguistics)CeremonyOpening ceremonyAestheticsArtMedia studiesPolitical scienceHistorySociologyArchaeologyLawCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the London 2012 Opening Olympic Ceremony, emotional moments such as the torch relay and the celebration of the National Health Service affected many viewers. Such a spectacle of national history and culture was wide-sweeping and is still remembered today as a moment of triumph for the country. With the Paris 2024 Olympics only months away, it becomes timely to observe how the sensorial spectacle of the Olympics works to create a certain emotional effect in its viewers, and how they leave with a specific understanding of what the nation stands for. Crucially, it is imperative to survey the ways in which national histories and cultures have been edited for an "Olympic affect" during the Opening Ceremony and comprehend why they play such a crucial role in contemporary political discourse. The London 2012 Opening Olympic Ceremony revealed a particular perspective on British history, used emotion and spectacle to recount a specific version of events, and attempted to garner a certain sense of national pride during a time of national crisis. In examining specific visual and auditory cues of this Opening Olympic Ceremony, this study will define the "Olympic affect" and examine the idealised Britishness that is performed, so that we may understand what kind of affectual and political power the Olympics hold.

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)0.002
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 score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFORUM University of Edinburgh Postgraduate Journal of Culture & the ArtsSame topicPhilippine History and CultureFrench-language works237,207