Athletes' event experiences of the XIX Commonwealth Games in Delhi, India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to examine one primary stakeholder (i.e. athletes) and how they experienced the mega‐sport event environment of the XIX Commonwealth Games in the developing nation of India and the city of Delhi. A further objective was to identify key factors of the Games outside of athletic performance that shaped athletes' experiences. Design/methodology/approach A multi‐dimensional instrument was created with an expert panel of Commonwealth Games Federation board members and sport management academics to examine athletes' experiences. Data was collected after the start of competition up until three weeks after the completion of the Games. Findings Overall, the athletes had a positive experience. Factors such as ceremonies (e.g. opening), ancillary areas (e.g. fitness facility) and sport venues (e.g. environment) in particular were rated by the athletes as positive. Certain aspects of the Games were identified as requiring improvements such as accommodations (e.g. housekeeping, laundry) and communication (e.g. wireless availability). Further, despite high scores for security, athletes also reported feeling uneasy about additional travel outside the athletes' village. Practical implications Enhanced opportunities to experience the city outside the athletes' village, increased merchandising opportunities, and holding the opening ceremonies further in advance of the start of competition were suggested by athletes. Originality/value The study was the first known study to empirically examine athletes' experiences with a mega‐sport event such as the Commonwealth Games.
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".