A Disillusion with the Olympic Fantasy::Olympic Identity Card-Related Controversies from 1972 to 1984
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Olympic Identity Card (OIC), an official identification paper issued by an Olympic Games Organizing Committee, long served as a visa for sportspersons and sports officials attending the Olympic Games to enter the host country, even before it was formally included in The Olympic Charter in 1975. From the 1920s to the 1970s, despite internal debates over the practice, the OIC often served as an international traveling document in lieu of a passport if an Olympian so chose, therefore representing the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) ambition of overriding national laws and sovereignty with the high ideal of Olympic unity. However, come the 1970s, new development in world politics as well as security concerns led to controversy after controversy related to the OIC. Matters including but not limited to the Rhodesian delegation’s entry into Germany in 1972, the Canadian government’s refusal of the Republic of China delegation’s entry in 1976, and the U.S. government’s requirement of an additional visa stamp for Olympians in 1980 exposed the vulnerability of the Olympic ideal against state power. The IOC’s Juridical Committee’s study clarified the lack of real legal power of the OIC per se and forced the organization to formally establish an OIC system, later known as the Olympic Identity and Accreditation Card (OIAC), in its statutes and include relevant items in host city contracts. In this paper, we examine primary sources including IOC meeting minutes in the 1970s and 1980s, to establish a timeline of the institutionalization of the OIC. In doing so, we argue that these maneuvers in fact reflected the IOC’s disillusion with imposing the Olympic ideal and capitulation to realpolitik under the disguise of a formalizing process of a long-standing idealistic tradition.
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 | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".