Leveraging the 2010 Olympic Games: 'Sustainability' in a City of Vancouver Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Where once the value of hosting sports mega-events like the Olympics was assumed, scholars, activists, media, politicians and the general public have all questioned if hosting an Olympics or other sporting mega-event is worth it. Often these same stakeholders call for cost-benefit analyses to determine whether the economic output involved in hosting is matched or exceeded by the environmental or social costs engenders. Asking if hosting the Olympic Games is worth it demands data that measures change in the host context before, during, and after the Games. For example, does air quality change? Do more tourist dollars come in? Do perceptions of people with disabilities change? Do the levels of people taking public transit increase, and does this increase last beyond the event? In addressing these questions, one can measure the impacts of building Games-time infrastructure, generating new local transportation systems, pulling in tourists (while scaring off others), and exposing potential investors to the host city; then, this line of thinking suggests, one can answer whether the Games were worth it or not. In 2009, the Olympic Games Impact (OGI) research team at the University of British Columbia conducted a large-scale pre-Games evaluation of the 2010 Games asking questions like those above. OGI is an International Olympic Committee initiative whose overall purpose is to gather information on economic, environmental, and social data on 126 prescribed indicators that measure changes in the host region (e.g., venues, tourists, media, housing, protest) and whether any changes may be attributed to the Games or not. OGI evaluates these changes against a sustainability standard. Data for each of the variables that comprise the individual indicators are sought at multiple scales (e.g., municipal, regional, provincial, and national). OGI has a twelve-year reporting period, starting two years before the awarding of the bid (2001 in Vancouver) and ending three years after the event (201 3 in Vancouver) to conduct four reports (e.g., a baseline, pre-Games, Game-time, and post-Games). Multiple reports enable the comparison of individual indicators across the pre-Games, Games-time, and post-Games state to determine changes and trends in the indicators. Attuned to the theoretical and methodological literature on sporting mega-events, leveraging, and sustainability, (1) the implications included the observation that government investments in the host context were likely to effect Games impacts. The pre-Games research analyzed government initiatives that were newly created, modified, or fast-tracked to take advantage of 2010 Games. (2) Fifty initiatives from governments that were part of the Olympic bid (municipal, regional, provincial, and federal) were identified up to February 2009 in the lead-up to the 2010 Games events. (3) OGI findings from these initiatives confirmed the effort by host governments to develop what appeared to be a long-term, planned, and coordinated approach to leveraging the Games. In addition, the OGI research team determined that impact-inducing activities appeared to begin years before the Games, going back to when the decision to bid is made. Mindful of the IOC's desire to employ OGI and other means to promote sustainability, the pre-Games report also suggests that the initiatives can be categorized as oriented towards sustainability. The implications are that hosting sports mega-events, rather than simply representing a list of processes necessary to hosting that cause measurable impacts, may also leverage desired benefits such as public policy implementing new curricula, community programs, demonstration projects, or marketing efforts that leverage the Games to move society toward greater sustainability. The authors of the current study will investigate how leveraging proceeded in the city of Vancouver immediately preceding and following the 2010 Olympic Games, by analyzing a case of how the City of Vancouver leveraged the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. …
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".