Análisis de las publicaciones cientÃficas sobre olimpismo hasta 1996: materias, evolución, idiomas y tipos de publicación
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analyse the scientific publications on Olympic Games to establish the singularity of the characteristics concerning their subjects, level, languages, types and the number of publications.We used the international computerized database "Sport" 1 , of the International Association of Sports Information (IASI) and Canadian Sport Information Resource Centre (SIRC).This analysis enable us to establish differences between applied sciences on olympics and applied sciences on sport in general.It is surprising firstly that in the 70's decade, the number of scientific works increases 16,7 times, the largest increment among decades, even though the level is lower than previosly.The main subjects on olympics by their number of publications are: 1 ST Administration, 2 nd History, 3 rd Associations and Commitees, 4 th Sports Facilities, 5 th Biographies, 6 th Philosophy, 7 th Politics, 8 th Mass Media; but the most "specific" olympic subjects are: 1 ST Associations and Commitees, 2 nd Culture, 3 rd Politics, 4 th Mass media, 5 th Philosophy, 6 th Economy, 7 th Administration.Until 1996, the Games with the highest number of publications were Calgary 1988 (winter), with 12% of the total olympic publications.
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) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".