MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975508362 · doi:10.7202/038462ar

Professional Hockey and Urban Development: A Historical Case Study of the Vancouver Arena, 1911–1914

2009· article· en· W1975508362 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
John Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban History Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)ClubStadiumCapital (architecture)WelfareUrban planningPublic administrationPublic relationsPolitical scienceManagementBusinessEconomic growthEngineeringHistoryLawCivil engineeringEconomicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the Vancouver Arena, also known as the Denman Street Arena, and its impact in the immediate six city blocks along Georgia street between Bidwell and Chilco streets. An enterprise of the Patrick family, the Vancouver Arena was built in 1911 to house the Vancouver Professional Hockey Club in the new Pacific Coast Hockey Association, also a Patrick family undertaking. Prior to the Second World War, sport entrepreneurs generally subscribed to the principle of free enterprise, which eschewed government interference. Unlike professional team owners of today, they viewed government financial aid as corporate welfare, an idea antithetical to the capitalistic tendencies of business owners at the time. These early sport promoters usually raised capital through means other than government largess. Municipalities, on the other hand, did not consciously include sport facilities as part of their urban planning. Unlike in stadium and arena projects today, there were no efforts made by promoters to link the construction of a sport facility with the economic health of the city. The case of the Vancouver Arena demonstrates that a sport facility had minimal impact on its immediate vicinity, but the larger economic climate of the city and region had a more significant influence.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban History ReviewSame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207