Does hosting the Olympic Games matter? Canada and Olympic Games images before and after the 2010 Olympic Games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A cross-national, longitudinal study of Canadian and US respondents examined impacts of the Vancouver Olympic Games (VOG) on images of the host country, Canada, and the Olympic Games (OG) itself. Questionnaires were completed before and after the VOG on four distinct attitude objects: Canada as a vacation destination, the country/people of Canada, and the VOG as a destination and an event. Repeated measures MANOVA indicated positive impacts of the VOG but differences across the two populations. Little change was seen in OG images and interest among Americans, but major improvements occurred among Canadians. Differences in perceptions of the domestic and foreign populations towards the host country appeared, confirming earlier research on domestic bias effects. Results indicated hosting the OG contributed to improved images for Americans of Canadians, Canada as a country and as a destination. Canadians evidenced increased pride in their own country. Findings indicated mutual positive benefits for Canada and the OG images and interest.
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 | 0.000 | 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".