MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002265110 · doi:10.1177/1012690205059873

Inside the Promotional Vortex

2005· article· en· W2002265110 on OpenAlexaffabout
Simon C. Darnell, Robert Sparks

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review for the Sociology of Sport · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Studies and Communication
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperChampionHeadlineAdvertisingVictoryMedalMedia coverageAmbush marketingPolitical scienceMedia studiesSociologyArtBusinessLawPoliticsVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When Canadian Simon Whitfield won the gold medal in the first ever Olympic Men’s Triathlon at the 2000 Sydney Games, the Canadian media labeled him an ‘Olympic champion’ and ‘golden boy’ and constructed his victory as ‘heroic’ and emblematic of Canadian character. Positive media attention led to several sponsorship contracts which in turn led to more media coverage about his success, with the result that Whitfield became a media celebrity and product endorser in Canada. In this article we examine the media production processes that led to the construction of Whitfield’s positive media image and the impact of this coverage on his marketability. Through interviews with five national and regional newspaper journalists who wrote stories about Whitfield and four national marketers who worked on his sponsorship campaigns, as well as with Whitfield himself, we demonstrate how media and marketing production are linked as part of a promotional chain. In the case of Whitfield, this promotional chain resulted in media coverage that was similar across various newspapers, and which served in the construction of media and marketing coverage of Whitfield that affirmed dominant meanings of sport culture in Canada.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0100.012
Scholarly communication0.0150.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.004

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations24
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review for the Sociology of SportSame topicMedia Studies and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207