Sport mega-events and tourism: contrasting the influence of host country and event
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is an empirical, descriptive study of tourists at sport mega-events. Its purpose is to describe tourists who attend sport mega-events. As an empirical study, it surveys tourists at two major sport mega-events in two different countries: the 2008 Olympic Games in China and the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa. Building on a growing body of literature related to the marketing of sport mega-events, results support that both the place (China versus South Africa) and the attraction (Olympic Games versus FIFA World Cup) influence - across a number of place image variables - the nature and composition of the tourists who are attracted to the sport mega-event. The findings suggest that the sport mega-event can be used by the host country to target potential tourists who have limited interest in the event. Further, this research finds that the tourist view of the sport mega-event is influenced by the host country and the nature of the event. The research responds to a key need in both the literature and in practice, where understanding of tourists in the SME context is needed for countries, regions and communities.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".