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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

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