MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Residents' Perceptions of Convention Centers: A Distance Decay Analysis

2017· article· en· W2613887413 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
ShiNa Li, Shuang Cang, Rhodri Thomas, Seong Duk Hyun

Bibliographic record

VenueEvent Management · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConventionDistance decayMetropolitan areaPerceptionExhibitionTourismBusiness tourismInvestment (military)Quarter (Canadian coin)Political sciencePublic relationsPsychologyGeographyEconomic geographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public investment in convention centers represents a relatively common approach to stimulating economic development in many large cities throughout the world. The rationale is that metropolitan authorities can thereby attract business tourists and promote positive (business friendly) images of their locality. Although the economic dimension of such spending has received some attention, especially by consultants, there has been little theorizing or empirical research that has examined residents' perceptions of such development. This is in sharp contrast to examinations of resident perceptions of leisure tourism, which has witnessed extensive academic interest. This article analyzes residents' perceptions of the Busan Exhibition and Convention Centre in South Korea. Distance decay theories, geographic decay, and cognitive decay are used to inform the analysis. The findings indicate that increasing residents' engagement with, and knowledge of, convention centers is likely to engender positive perceptions of their impacts. It is suggested that urban policymakers in many parts of the world could learn from this study and should take residents' perceptions into account when financing and managing convention centers.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvent ManagementSame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207