MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stakeholder Management and the Public Subsidization of Nashville’s Coliseum

2005· article· en· W2130934872 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Friedman, Daniel S. Mason

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Urban Affairs · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStakeholderLegitimacyPublic relationsSubsidyStakeholder analysisPublic administrationPolitical sciencePower (physics)BusinessSociologyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through the use of stakeholder analysis, this article examines the case of Nashville, Tennessee and its pursuit of the Houston Oilers. Focusing on the public policy decision-making process, we review the manner through which Nashville Mayor Philip Bredesen, as a focal stakeholder, managed the different groups that stood to influence, were potentially affected by, or were ultimately involved in, the public subsidization of a football stadium. The various stakeholders were evaluated by identifying their objectives and their ability to impact or be affected by the issue, and were classified into one of eight stakeholder categories in terms of the presence of power, legitimacy, and urgency. This classification formed the basis for analyzing and understanding interactions between groups as the issue developed and was resolved.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Urban AffairsSame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207