MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7053046920

Synchronized Swimming in Ontario, 1920–50s: Gender, Beauty, and Sport

2023· article· en· W7053046920 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePOLI-RED (Revistas Digitales Politécnicas) (La Universidad Politécnica de Madrid) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanopore and Nanochannel Transport Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Jerome's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Promotion (chess)Order (exchange)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Este artículo examina la historia de la natación sincronizada en Ontario, con un enfoque específico en Peterborough, entre las décadas de 1920 y 1950. Dos factores explican el auge y la consolidación de la "sincro" como deporte femenino en ese período. El primer factor está relacionado con los cambios anteriores en el deporte femenino en el período de entreguerras, junto con el auge de la cultura de la belleza hegemónica moderna. A medida que la sincro luchaba por el reconocimiento oficial, los entrenadores y nadadores asimilaron los estándares de belleza femenina para generar popularidad para su deporte. El segundo factor está relacionado con el enfoque nacionalista en el desarrollo del deporte en las décadas de 1940 y 1950. La inversión financiera e ideológica en el deporte, dando importancia a la salud y la condición física nacional, permitió que la sincro creciera y prosperara. Como lo ejemplifica el club de Peterborough, estos dos factores permitieron que las mujeres canadienses tuvieran un papel formativo en el desarrollo nacional e internacional de la sincronizada como un deporte para producir cuerpos sanos y bellos.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it