MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917517103 · doi:10.23912/9781911396635-4090

Introduction to Stakeholder Theory

2019· book-chapter· en· W2917517103 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGoodfellow Publishers eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStakeholderEvent (particle physics)Stakeholder theoryEvent managementTourismStakeholder analysisBusinessDestination managementProcess managementKnowledge managementManagement scienceDestinationsComputer scienceEngineeringPublic relationsPolitical scienceCritical success factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Of the many management-oriented theories, concepts and models available, stakeholder theory (ST) is one of the few that has found a firm place in event management and event tourism, both in the research literature and in practice. Why? Because of the vital importance of knowing and managing stakeholders in all contexts, whether it is a single event, a city or destination, or a business dealing with events. The influence of stakeholders cannot be ignored, as they are an inherent part of planning, marketing and management. Once you understand the basics as described in this book you should be able to identify and classify your organization or event’s stakeholders and develop appropriate management tools reflecting your needs. Although the origins of the theory concern a company’s external relationships, it is especially important for events and destinations to consider both internal and external stakeholders. The chapter starts with basic definitions, then goes on to fully explore stakeholder theory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.215 · 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