The Outcomes of Coattail Marketing: The Case of Windsor, Ontario, and Super Bowl XL
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
The recent hosting of Super Bowl XL in Detroit gave the adjacent Canadian city of Windsor, Ontario, the opportunity to ‘coattail market’ the event and reap some obvious benefits. For a modest $250,000 investment, Windsor was billed as the co-host and the local media cooperated by providing very positive coverage of this win win’ arrangement. Using Hiller's (1998) linkage model for analyzing the impact of mega sporting events, the authors use qualitative methods to determine the extent to which the city enjoyed tangible returns as a result of this unique co-hosting arrangement. On-site interviews with selected sport bar owners and a content analysis of local and national newspapers yielded data to support Hiller's model. Viewing mega sporting events in the economic and political context of the host city provides a more balanced landscape from which conclusions might be drawn. In particular, the unexpected outcomes known as parallel linkages are useful in tempering the sometimes exaggerated claims of economic impact that are so often used before, during, and after the staging of these hallmark events.
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 | 0.009 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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