Comparison of broadcasting hockey tournament at the Olympic Games in 1998 and 2010, focusing on commentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bibliografický záznam BEREŇ, Michael. Srovnání vysílání hokejového turnaje na olympijských hrách v roce 1998 a 2010 se zaměřením na komentář. Praha, 2011. 152 s. Bakalářská práce (Bc.) Univerzita Karlova, Fakulta sociálních věd, Institut komunikačních studií a žurnalistiky. Katedra žurnalistiky. Vedoucí diplomové práce Prof. PhDr. Jiří Kraus, DrSc. Abstract The goal of the bachelor thesis is comparison of broadcasting of hockey tournaments at the Olympic Games in 1998 (Japan, Nagano) and 2010(Canada, Vancouver). My work has to demonstrate, how the sport live broadcasting has changed in 12 years, especially thanks to HD broadcasting technology. In this work I will focus especially on commentary. I will compare the role of color commentator ("analyser") and profi-commentator ("play-by-play") . I will describe the commentator's work along with historical background in theoretical part. In practical part I will try to examine audience reactions according to my own case study and complete them by case studies and surveys that have already been published. Interviewing of commentators will be the main source for this work.
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 | 0.004 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".