Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter revisits the organization of the 1988 Calgary Olympic Winter Games in a period of increased Olympic environmentalism and activism by providing a historical overview of the emergence of Olympic environmental concerns, particularly as they relate to the Winter Games. This chapter underscores the three decade–long opposition to hosting the games, premised mainly on ecological concerns, criticisms, and activism, in Calgary and the surrounding regions. Seemingly absent from environmental advocacy efforts were Indigenous peoples. Although Indigenous peoples bear a disproportionate share of environmental burdens, they possess unextinguished environmental rights through treaty guarantees, confirming the implicit right to conservation in their territories and, at the very least, prohibiting environmental harm severe enough to threaten their survival. In the Mohkinstsis (Calgary) context, this includes Treaty 7 (1877), which protects the Siksika, Kainai, Piikani, Stoney-Nakota, and Tsuu T’ina peoples and territories from environmental degradation, safeguarding their traditional ways from non-Indigenous erosion, ensuring their lifestyles and practices will be forever protected. This chapter transposes Indigenous treaty rights discourse into Olympic environmental discussions, arguing, in the case of Calgary, Olympic opponents failed to recognize the robust legal rights, and thus ecological protections and rights afforded to Indigenous peoples, which may have served to not only bolster the anti-Olympic campaign but to further support environmental and sustainability efforts throughout the region.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.173 | 0.030 |
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".