MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2348782189

Study on the Classification and Ways of the Finance Expenditure of Olympic Games

2003· article· en· W2348782189 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dong Jie

Bibliographic record

VenueSport science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationOrder (exchange)FinanceEconomicsMarketingPublic economicsBusinessComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classification and ways of finance expenditure of Olympic Games were analyzed in order to have a better understanding and use of the funds and look for ways of decreasing expenditure. Methods of documentation, interview and comparative study were employed. Based on the principle of sustainable use of the expenditure after the Games, the expenditure of Olympic Games are generally divided into two parts; that for organization of the Games and that for basic civil construction. There existed great differences in expenditure of civil construction for different Olympic Games, which was exemplified by those of the Montreal, Los Angeles and Barcelona Games in this paper.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSport scienceSame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207