A Case Study of the National Hockey League: The Question of Expansion
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
At the upcoming National Hockey League (NHL) owners’ meeting in Boca Raton, Florida, team owners are meeting to discuss franchise expansion. League executives believe adding two new franchises would increase viewership and popularity, generate higher revenues, and balance the Eastern and Western Conferences. However, it is unclear whether viable markets for two new franchises exist. Despite this concern, five ownership groups representing five distinct North American cities—Seattle, Washington; Las Vegas, Nevada; Kansas City, Missouri; Indianapolis, Indiana; and Québec City, Québec, Canada—have emerged as viable candidates for an expansion franchise. Given the five ownership groups, the NHL now needs to decide which cities to choose as the new homes for its two expansion teams, based on each city’s viability to host a professional team. Each ownership group will present a case on why its city should be the future home of a new NHL expansion team.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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