Sustainable development in the context of the Olympic Games.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem statement, The Olympic Games represent the most important competition of world sports, with a huge impact on human life. Persisting throughout the centuries, they have become not only a sports phenomenon, but also a social, cultural and economic one. That is why the organization of the Olympics has been regarded, in recent years, in the context of sustainable development. The concept of “sustainable development” includes all forms and methods of socio-economic development, which are mainly focused on ensuring a balance between the social, economic, ecological aspects and the natural capital elements. The principles of sustainable development can be found in the Olympism, too. The aim of the research. The study aimed to highlight the way in which sustainable development was reflected in the organization of the Olympic Games, starting with the Vancouver 2010 edition until Sochi, in 2014. Objectives: The main objective was to determine the economic and social impact of sustainable development on the Olympic Games. Methods of research: Bibliographic research was on the basis of this study. Conclusions: If, in the Vancouver Olympics, sustainable development did not reach its purpose, the developer failing in business because of the real-estate credit crisis, in London, the Organizing Committee managed this issue better by far. This imposed a set of requirements relating to sustainability at all levels of the supply chains, and one of the main objectives was to make sure that both the metals for medals and the diplomas and flowers were coming from sustainable sources. This paper has been financially supported within the project entitled “SOCERT. Knowledge society, dynamism through research”, contract number POSDRU/159/1.5/S/132406. This project is co-financed by European Social Fund through Sectoral Operational Programme for Human Resources Development 2007-2013, “Investing in people!”
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".