MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132685728 · doi:10.1123/cssm.2.1.10

The Responsibilities of Olympic Sponsors? BP and the London 2012 Olympic Games

2013· article· en· W2132685728 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

VenueCase Studies in Sport Management · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClimate Change Communication and Perception
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipAction planAction (physics)Oil spillPublic relationsPolitical sciencePlan (archaeology)Public administrationManagementEnvironmental protectionGeographyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2008, the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG) announced that they had signed a $58 million (US) sponsorship agreement with British Petroleum (BP), an oil company with well-known environmental concerns and offenses. The current case is set in July 2010 amidst BP’s most recent, and largest, environmental incident. The purpose of this case is to answer a key question: What action (if any) should LOCOG take with respect to its partnership with BP given the Gulf Coast oil spill? Additionally, students are challenged to form opinions regarding the environmental and social responsibilities of an Olympic sponsor, and to develop a strategic plan and policies for Olympic partners related to their environmental and social actions in the future.

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)0.002
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.211 · 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