MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110929697 · doi:10.1177/1527002507308769

A Contingent Valuation of the 2012 London Olympic Games

2007· article· en· W2110929697 on OpenAlex

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 Sports Economics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrideValuation (finance)Contingent valuationValue (mathematics)Work (physics)Event (particle physics)EconomicsWillingness to payPolitical scienceFinanceLawEngineeringMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Major sporting events such as the Olympics are usually assessed in terms of economic impacts. Recently, policy makers have begun to place greater emphasis on possible intangible effects (such as civic pride, legacy of sporting facilities) associated with such events. To date, little work has been carried out on quantifying these effects in a meaningful way. This study uses contingent valuation methodology to assess the value of the proposed 2012 London Olympic Games. The survey is carried out on the provincial city of Bath, approximately 2 hours west of London. Conducting the survey outside of London is justified on the basis that the organizers of London 2012 have emphasized the value of the event to the United Kingdom as a whole. The results suggest that positive intangible effects are associated with the event and residents outside of London are willing to pay toward funding.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.258 · 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