MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104257744 · doi:10.1177/0096144213491696

“Domed” to Fail? Diverging Stakeholder Interests in a Stadium Referendum

2013· article· en· W2104257744 on OpenAlex
Daniel S. Mason, Ernest A. Buist

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Urban History · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReferendumStadiumNewspaperContext (archaeology)StakeholderBallotPoliticsPolitical sciencePublic administrationOrder (exchange)Public relationsPolitical economySociologyLawBusinessFinanceHistoryVoting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the case of Cleveland, Ohio, in 1984, where a referendum to publicly fund a domed stadium failed. To do so, the interactions of stakeholders leading up to the referendum are reviewed. Examination of newspaper coverage in the Cleveland Plain Dealer focused on three events—the sale of the Cleveland Indians, the stadium development proposal, and the placement of the stadium issue on a crowded ballot. The team’s sale resulted in the mobilization of powerful stakeholders, but conflicting signals and a lack of consensus from political elites helped to defeat the proposal. Results are then discussed in terms of previous research examining stakeholder heterogeneity in order to understand why the referendum failed in this context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it