Early Modern Olympians: Puritan Sportsmen in Seventeenth-Century England and America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Europeans who conquered the Americas in the early modern era lived in a remarkably violent world. Nowhere was this more true than in the world of sports, which often saw mortal combat between humans, blood sports between man and animals, and collective contests where maiming was the rule. Against this background, the Puritan reformers of England and New England formulated a contrasting set of sporting ideals remarkably consistent with the modern amateur and Olympic commitment to athletes who embody “a sound mind in a healthy body.” Puritan support of certain types of sports is relatively little known because the Puritans famously opposed James I’s Book of Sports (1616). They did so not out of hostility to physical recreation, however, but out of support for the principle of Sabbatarianism, and Puritans — both in England and New England — enjoyed a number of sports that involved what modern peoples would call track and field events, along with other forms of sport. Although the Cotswold Games, which began in England in 1612 and which the Puritans vehemently opposed as sinful and immoral, are considered by many to have marked the beginning of the modern Olympic tradition’s revival, the Puritan sporting ethic may be just as important as an early modern precursor.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".