A Stakeholder approach to Understanding Economic Development Decision Making: Public Subsidies for Professional Sport Facilities
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To analyze the politics of economic development decision making through focusing on participants and their interests, this article details a model of stakeholder analysis developed within organization studies by Mitchell, Agle, and Wood for use among policy makers and researchers. Demonstrating the model through the issue of subsidies for the construction of major league sports facilities, a stakeholder map is created to assess the constituent environment based on the degree to which stakeholders possess attributes of power, legitimacy, and urgency.With this map, various situational factors are assessed to demonstrate the utility of stakeholder analysis for decision makers to strategically manage constituent groups and to explain case outcomes and the manner in which policies are determined. Although the findings suggest that decision makers should focus their resources on stakeholders possessing all three attributes, monitoring the environment is essential to identify potential threats and opportunities.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it