Wayne Gretzky calls probable number-one draftee 'best in 30 years'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the hockey player known as \The Great One\ thinks you're the best prospect in thirty years, you must be doing something right. Wayne Gretzky talked to the Edmonton Journal about 18-year-old phenom Connor McDavid after the Edmonton Oilers won the 20-15 NHL Draft Lottery last weekend. Gretzky said he thinks McDavid's the best player he's seen in thirty years, and that McDavid's got the talent and makeup to break his scoring records. That's high praise coming from the man who owns virtually every meaningful N-H-L scoring record, and most of them by a wide margin. But it's not just hot air coming from number 99: McDavid's play this season for the junior-league Erie Otters was simply astounding. He scored 44 goals and had 76 assists in just 47 games. Gretzky also said McDavid would be a perfect fit in the city of Edmonton and vice verse, predicting that he'd be treated like an Edmontonian. The Oilers were the unlikely winners of the 2015 NHL Draft Lottery, having only an eleven-point-five percent chance of landing the top spot in this summer's draft. The two teams with worse seasons, the Buffalo Sabres and the Arizona Coyotes, were often-times accused of tanking games to improve their chances of winning the first pick and the right to draft McDavid. Hockey's social media universe even coined a catchy slogan for the phenomenon: \Dishonor for Connor.\ Oilers general manager Craig MacTavish says there is \zero chance\ that he'll trade away the pick, and it's all but certain that McDavid will don an Oilers hat at the draft on June 26th. It's the fourth time in six years Edmonton is drafting first overall, but it hasn't helped yet: they've missed the playoffs for nine straight years.
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) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.258 |
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".