Measuring the success of country football clubs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Until the last quarter of the twentieth century, non-metropolitan Australian Rules football clubs prospered as volunteer organisations, operating in regions that were protected by distance from clubs in larger, competing leagues. They acted as places that people valued and were important components of social capital in their communities, and in turn, received subsidies from other community groups that reduced operating costs. Clubs appear to have measured success in terms of their ability to attract the talent needed to build a winning team that would boost the prestige of both the club and its local community. The Victorian Football League’s regulations about player payment and mobility gave country football clubs the opportunity to offer attractive terms to League players, and this prevented the game’s most powerful league, from crowding out its rivals. The circumstances that were favourable to country football clubs have changed with the formation of a major league, the Australian Football League. The televising of matches nationwide allowed people in even remote regions to watch AFL games. Economic and demographic decline in country areas, greater mobility and the lure of metropolitan jobs has made it difficult for clubs to retain players. In this challenging economic environment, many country football clubs have been unable to survive in their own right. This paper reports on a survey of administrators of Victorian country football clubs as to their perceptions of what constitutes ‘success’ in this new environment. It provides information about how individual clubs are responding to broad changes that are beyond their control, and offers evidence about the ability of local football clubs to continue to play their traditional role as places of importance and generators of social capital in regional communities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".