Do Fans Want Their Team to be Competitive in the Short-Term (the Next Game) or the Long-Term (the Full Season), and Does the Answer Affect Management Decisions?
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
Abstract Competitive balance (CB) is arguably the strongest determinant of league profitability in professional sport. The long-standing perspective of CB is encompassed in the uncertainty of outcomes hypothesis (UOH), which notes that consumers/fans are most attracted to a contest if the outcome is uncertain. However, a recent view suggests that CB should be conceptualized in terms of the number of teams that have reasonable hope of longer-term success (i.e., making the playoffs). This study measures both constructs using a random mass-market survey, and addresses the research question: What factors influence one's orientation towards game uncertainty (UOH) versus hope (and vice versa)? Using decision tree analysis, we found that the more involved the sport consumer (fan), the stronger their Hope orientation towards CB. The paper concludes by suggesting different promotional campaigns depending upon the intended target audience (hope or UOH oriented) and highlighting the need for broader based research in the area.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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