Urban Regimes and the Sporting Events Agenda: A Cross-National Comparison of Civic Development Strategies
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
This article examines the coalitions undergirding comprehensive sport-centered growth agendas in three cities actively pursuing sporting event development strategies: Edmonton, Canada; Manchester, United Kingdom; and Melbourne, Australia. Using DiGaetano and Klemanski’s (1999) study of modes of urban governance as a starting point, we review each city’s urban political economy, urban governing agenda, and urban governing alliances. We then discuss whether coalitions in each of the cities can be identified as regimes, by examining the conditions required for the presence of regimes developed by Dowding (2001). Results suggest the presence of regimes in each city, which can be best described using Stoker and Mossberger’s (1994) symbolic regime, developed in their typology of regimes for cross-national research. However, the cities differ slightly, with Edmonton exhibiting the characteristics of a progressive version of a symbolic regime, whereas Manchester and Melbourne more closely resemble urban revitalization regimes.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it