Fostering Community Development through Sporting Events Strategies: An Examination of Urban Regime Perceptions1,2
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 perceptions of members of urban regimes in three cities: Edmonton, Manchester, and Melbourne, regarding the use sporting events for broadbased community outcomes. In Edmonton, members of the urban regime interviewed did not perceive the sporting events strategy to be directly tied to community development objectives. In Manchester and Melbourne, regime members believed that the use of events for development was uniquely tied to communities and community development goals. In addition, regime members in the latter two cities provided examples of symbolic attempts to foster community around the sporting events strategies. While this study could not reveal whether attempts to meet the needs of local communities were being achieved through the sporting events strategies, it is at least encouraging to note that those who control resources and conceive of, oversee, and implement growth strategies within cities view community development as important to these strategies.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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