Impact of the 1996 Summer Olympic Games on Employment and Wages in Georgia
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
Using a standard differences‐in‐differences (DD) technique and a modified DD technique in the slopes, this paper determines that hosting the 1996 Summer Olympic Games boosted employment by 17% in the counties of Georgia affiliated with and close to Olympic activity, relative to employment increases in other counties in Georgia (the rate of growth increased 0.002 percentage points per quarter). Estimation of a random‐growth model confirms a positive impact of the Olympics on employment. In addition, the employment impact is shown not to be merely a “metropolitan statistical area (MSA) effect”; employment in the northern Olympic venue areas was found to increase 11% more post‐ versus pre‐Olympics than it did in other, similar southern MSAs. The evidence of an Olympic impact on wages is weak.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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