Leveraging tourism social capital: the case of the 2010 Olympic tourism consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore social capital emerging from the collective set of activities pursued by a network of stakeholders leveraging tourism benefits from the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games (the Games). Design/methodology/approach A case study of an Olympic tourism consortium (the Consortium) established to garner tourism benefits from the Games illustrates the forms of social capital development emerging from this initiative. A three‐phased research process involving a literature review, key informant interviews with Consortium stakeholders, and a follow‐up on‐line survey with these representatives informs the study's data collection and analysis process. Aspects of bonding, bridging and linking social capital creation are examined. Findings Varying levels of confidence, trust, mutual respect, personal ties, shared values, and human capacity were generated through the Consortium's activities. This social capital was perceived as a valuable but fragile legacy capable of nurturing increased leadership and organizational capacity particularly when tackling issues confronting the industry's overall sustained prosperity. They also felt that the value and momentum of the social capital legacy might be imperiled by a limited appreciation of how to effectively activate it in a post‐Games environment. Practical implications Insights are provided into the social capital that networks of stakeholders can generate when working collectively to leverage benefits from sport mega‐events such as the Games. Originality/value The research contributes to emerging discussions concerning social capital leveraging in tourism related sport mega‐event management settings.
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".