ON THE QUESTION OF THE NEED TO SPLIT THE OLYMPIC GAMES PROGRAM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research purpose. Against the backdrop of the obvious problem of overload in the modern Olympic program, the author offers his vision for optimizing the structure of the Olympic Games. Research methods. The large number of sports included in the Summer Olympic Games overload the Games program, require large expenses for their holding and reduce the value of the Olympic competitions. The author proposes to solve this problem by isolating all water sports from the program into separate Water Olympic Games, which should be held a year before the Summer Games, as well as excluding from the program of the Olympic Games into a separate block the 4 most popular team sports (football, basketball, volleyball, hockey) with the recognition of world championships in these sports as Olympic competitions. The results of the research. The proposed innovations should: help reduce the costs of holding individual Games, significantly expand the number of candidate countries wishing to host the Olympic Games, allow small countries that currently lack the economic capacity to host the competitions; distribute the attention of fans more evenly and increase their interest in a greater number of sports disciplines by holding Olympic competitions annually; provide an opportunity to expand the list of new potential Olympic disciplines and raise the status of existing ones. Conclusion. Currently, the world is seeing an obvious decline in interest in the Olympic movement and Olympic ideas. Without making serious changes to the program of Olympic competitions, taking into account modern realities and the interests of the younger generation, there is a high risk of losing Olympism as a social phenomenon that unites nations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".