Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Philosophical espousal of the sustainability rubric is becoming widespread in the event industry. A business systems‐oriented literature has emerged that helps event organizers plan for and measure success of more environmentally responsible or sustainable events. While top‐down approaches to sustainability are increasingly well established, the practical application of these programs in the unique event planning and management context is less well understood. This paper aims to build understanding of operations‐level opportunities and constraints that may be faced by environmental practitioners in event organizations. Design/methodology/approach Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with members of the Vancouver 2010 Organizing Committee's (VANOC) Environmental Management Team (EMT), a group of environmental professionals embedded in VANOC's venue infrastructure business unit. Findings Several organizational strategies are described but intra‐organizational relationships are found to be the medium by which the environmental sustainability concept is actualized at venues. Originality/value Although the EMT operated within the standardized event delivery model established by the International Olympic Committee, it is hoped the Vancouver 2010 experience will be useful for other event organizers instituting and delivering environmental programs.
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".