Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1908, London hosted the fourth Olympic Games. A centrepiece of the Olympics, still in a nascent form after their creation in 1896, was the Marathon, a foot-race of approximately 40 kilometres. The London race was run from Windsor Castle to the Olympic Stadium at Shepherd’s Bush in July 1908, a distance of 26 miles and 385 yards. It quickly became famous for various controversies, such as the judges’ assistance that helped the Dorando Pietri over the line, and the questionable amateur status of Canadian runner Tom Longboat. Such incidents, and the subsequent acceptance of the London 1908 distance as the standard marathon distance, have made this one of the most famous races in Olympic history. <br/>This paper explores the race’s route. Using the official report and other contemporary documents, I will explore how the route was chosen, planned, and managed, and what London’s first marathon route tells us about the Edwardian capital and its suburbs and hinterlands. I will also reconstruct the route as it is now, exploring how the landscapes have changed over the century, and discussing some of the challenges involved in recapturing ephemeral sporting landscapes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".