Enabling Event Volunteer Legacies: A Knowledge Management Perspective
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
Human capital development delivered through the volunteers is espoused as one legacy outcome of hosting mega-sporting events such as the Olympic and Paralympic Games. However, to date the reality of such a legacy remains largely undemonstrated. In this article, Nonaka and Tacheuchi's SECI model and Lee and Yang's knowledge value chain (KVC) are integrated to identify insights to support the development of a potential human capital legacy from volunteers in future mega-sport events through focusing on knowledge management. A case study of the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games demonstrates gaps in the knowledge management systems in place, both in terms of the identification of knowledge and the processes for capture and reuse. It is argued that, unless those involved in hosting the events reconsider their approach to human capital legacy development, using the creation and management of knowledge as a core element, it is unlikely that long-term human capital legacy outcomes will be achieved for host 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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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