"Tell me who's your host and I'll tell you who you are": Olympic Games image before and after the 2008 and 2010 Olympic Games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to explore the images of the Olympic Games and their host countries, as a country and as a tourism destination, before and after the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games (BOG) and 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games (VOG). The attitude changes towards the three image objects and relationships among them are examined in a combined ‘country − destination − mega-event’ model. The paper reports on a questionnaire-based study completed by 1,292 American respondents who were approached two months before and two months after both the 2008 and 2010 Games. Results indicate a significant decrease in the attitudes towards the OG in the case of the 2008 BOG and some improvement in the case of the 2010 VOG. This contrast between the OG hosted in a developed country and one held in a developing country is an important contribution to the sport events literature. Further, regression analysis shows that evaluations of the OG as a destination are influenced (mediated) mainly by the evaluations of the host country as a destination.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".