Bibliographic record
Abstract
We argue that the "invention of tradition"(Hobsbawm & Ranger, 1983) is a process that sport organizations can use to delocalize themselves in order to build fan nations. The delocalization of sport organizations has been discussed as a consequence of globalization (Euchner, 1993). A tangible result of delocalization is the emergence of the fan as consumer (Gruneau & Whitson, 1993). Choosing which sports team to cheer for is just another choice that the fan as consumer now makes. This shift from fan to "fansumer " (Euchner, 1993) has meant that the importance of a sport team's local affiliation is disappearing. A result of the delocalization of sports teams is the emergence of fan nations. A nation is not restricted to a particular location. Anyone, from anywhere, can be a "fansumer". The Red Sox Nation (Shaughnessy, 1996) is the most notable, however, other nations are emerging. Toronto Maple Leaf and Saskatchewan Roughriders fans also refer to themselves as nations. Fan nation building is one way to increase the size and scope of a team's "fansumers". Social process help "fansumers " develop community attachments with the sport organization and other "fansumers " (Carbaugh, 1996; Eastman & Land, 1997; Melnick, 1993). In other words, a fan nation is built through social process. The appeal of belonging to nation is that the "fansumer " belongs to a community regardless of the team's location. How, then, can sport organizations facilitate the affiliation of "fansumers"? One place to look for an answer is in the literature on the historical development of nations and nationalism.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.931 | 0.885 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".