Semiotic representations of Olympic mascots revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review Olympic mascots in the electronic and traditional communications environments. Design/methodology/approach – Olympic mascots from 2006 to 2012 are analyzed using a descriptive semiotic analysis technique. Findings – Results found that none of the 2006-2012 mascots clearly represented the two most recognizable icons of the Olympic movement, the Olympic Rings and the Olympic Flame. The association of the London 2012 mascots with the Olympic Games are found to be limited. Research limitations/implications – This research sets the stage for a number of future studies to further assess the management issues, social benefits, and potential missteps regarding mascots at the Olympic Games and other mega-events. Practical implications – The practitioner of today working for a mega-event like the Olympic Games needs to be aware of the potential benefits and inherent risks of developing and implementing a mascot. Originality/value – This research is the first to look specifically at Olympic mascots in the electronic age and contrast their use to traditional communications.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".