Creative innovation in golf course architecture and retrospective judgments of quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In creative fields, supply is often thought to precede demand, rather than reacting to it, the source of Richard Caves’ influential “nobody knows” property, which is especially strong at points of significant stylistic change. Producers compete to promote new work, often through polemics that demarcate new styles from predominant ones by assigning new meanings to historical styles that are held to possess important meanings that are revived in the new style. This retrospective revaluation of past styles, “reputational entrepreneurship”, is meant to influence preferences of consumers (and thus demand), the efficacity of which may be measurable in some cases; for example, golf course architecture, where periodic magazine rankings of golf courses exist. We empirically evaluate the efficacity of a polemic advanced in the early 1990s by young architects (entrepreneurs in the reputational and professional senses) seeking to advance the reputation of pre-war relative to post-war architecture. We measure changes in consensus judgments through changes in biannual magazine rankings of the 100 Greatest Courses in the United States, and find that the rankings evolved in favor of pre-war as opposed to post-war (1945–1985) courses. We situate our analysis with reference to developments in the golf industry, discursive consecration of specific ideals as to the character of golf itself, and the propagation of the latter via appeals to social distinction. We relate our results to a Bourdieusian model of interdependence of demand and supply in creative fields undergoing major change, as well as to the literature on related questions in the field of conventional architecture, especially the triumph of Postmodernism.
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 | 0.008 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".