MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415482905 · doi:10.69520/jipe.v7i1.267

Extremism in European Football

2025· article· en· W4415482905 on OpenAlexaff
Jon Deighton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of innovation in polytechnic education. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsHumber Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFootballPoliticsAuthoritarianismCommunismPublic opinionTerrorismCountercultureNazism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Political and public extremism is present in many facets of everyday life. This is no different in professional sport, where fans embolden themselves as a collective unit of a particular commonality: the team, country, or political structures. Fan extremism represents the collectivization of political extremism, where fans use sport to justify public displays of far-right ideologies, racism, and bigotry under the guise of hooliganism. This review explores the early roots of the relationship between 20th-century fascism, how dictators manipulated football across Europe, the growth of football extremism in counterculture across multiple European countries with or without a direct history of fascist leaders, and its manifestation in 21st-century society. Research demonstrates that fan extremism is prevalent in both countries that were ruled by fascist dictators and countries ruled by oppressive Communist authoritarians whose people fought against socialism with fascist ideology, thus raising the question for further research: Is past or current authoritarian rule, either fascist or far-left, a required step in the development and proliferation of far-right extremism in sport?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of innovation in polytechnic education.Same topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207