A mega-event inside the Great Wall of China: expectations and possible impacts of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction November 25th, 1892, in main lecture theatre of Sorbonne, on occasion of fiftieth anniversary of Athletic Sports Union, Baron Pierre de Coubertin put forward a proposition which came as a surprise to everyone: revival of Greek Olympic Games. Two years later, on June 16th, 1894, also at Sorbonne, it was officially decided to revive Olympic Games. In 1896 first modern Olympic Games were opened. Callebart (1998: 555) Olympic Games are, in dimension, exposure and international participation, one of biggest events in world today. It is therefore understandable that a lot of expectations are placed on Olympiads and on its legacy, since Games are associated with peace and progressive development of links between countries and individuals: 'One World, One Dream'. Olympic Games have recognised economic, social and cultural impacts, identical to impacts associated with tourism (Lee, Var & Baline, 1996). Olympics can be considered a catalyst of change (May, 1995) and, following world agenda international trends, climate change, global warming, sustainable sources of energy, environmental friendly products and production processes, recycling and pollution reduction are issues that naturally built expectations on Olympic legacy of a better world. However, past experience shows that impacts of mega-events are not all positive and, considering that impacts' forces are associated with magnitude of event, effects have also a high negative potential. This article will explore expectations and possible impacts of Olympic Games with a focus on Beijing Olympiad. initial comparison of positive and negative impacts of event will be followed by specific comments on economic impacts, international influence impacts and environmental impacts. Expectations and possible impacts of Beijing Olympic Games The impact of holding Games is far greater than simply 17 days of Games themselves. Cochrane, Peck, Tickell (1996:1328) On July 13th, 2001, in Moscow, from a final set of candidate cities including Istanbul, Osaka, Paris and Toronto, Beijing was selected by International Olympic Committee to host Olympic Games. first and perhaps most important impact of edition of Olympic Games was turning eyes of whole world to China. is now changing fast, assuming an important position in world. Although no one really does know what will happen next in China (Wasserstrom, 2002: 128) fact is that world is now more interested in than ever before, and Beijing Olympic Games are a major factor of that world wide interest. In words of President of International Olympic Committee: the world will come to know more intimately after country opens itself to welcome global community in 2008 (Rogge, 2003: 18). Hosting Olympiad implies recognition of a country's high level of organizing capacity and economic resources and Beijing Olympics is a clear sign of importance of to world economy (Preuss, 2004) and a matter of national pride (Singh & Hu, in press). Beijing Olympic Games can be understood as a catalyst of change processes undergoing in (Theodoraki, 2004), but if event represents a unique opportunity, it is also associated with potential risks and negative outcomes. Figure 1 presents a summary of positive and negative impacts of Olympic Games based on a literature review. One possible analysis of this summary can isolate three different categories of impacts: (1) economic impacts; (2) international influence impacts; and (3) environmental impacts. These three categories of impacts will have a positive and a negative potential representing opportunities or risks to organizers and citizens of cities or country hosting 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".