MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974604508 · doi:10.2307/4128729

When Is the Honeymoon over? National Hockey League Attendance, 1970-2003

2006· article· en· W1974604508 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John C. Leadley, Zenon X. Zygmont

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSports Analytics and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHoneymoonLeagueAttendancePolitical sciencePsychologyDemographic economicsAdvertisingAeronauticsBusinessEconomicsEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper uses a Tobit analysis to test for the presence of a honeymoon effect for National Hockey League (NHL) arenas using pooled cross-section time series samples from 1970 to 2003. No previous NHL attendance demand or attendance-related study has tested for such an effect. We estimate that the opening of a new arena increases attendance demand 15 to 20 percent in the first years of operation, and that the honeymoon is over after five years. This is similar in magnitude and duration to the previously estimated effects for new facilities for Major League Baseball and National Basketball Association teams. For the period 1994­2003, when 21 new arenas were constructed, the honeymoon lengthened to eight years. Because many NHL arenas are subsidized, the honeymoon effect has public policy implications if revenue projections for a new arena overestimate the initial effect or ignore the decline over time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations80
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicSports Analytics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207