Enhancing the Fan Experience at Live Sporting Events: The Case of Stadium Wi-Fi
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
While live sport event attendance remains a pervasive and progressing issue for university athletic programs, athletic directors should consider strategies to boost perceptions of stadium innovativeness. Professional sport leagues have pursued the adoption of Wi-Fi capabilities much more aggressively than their collegiate sport counterparts. This case introduces the Wi-Fi adoption issue for collegiate sport including a conversation surrounding the foundational technical aspects of Wi-Fi and cellular data for sport venues, the current status of Wi-Fi for collegiate athletics in comparison with professional leagues, and the benefits and drawbacks of Wi-Fi adoption. Case participants are asked to evaluate the merits of Wi-Fi adoption for a “Power Five” institution from the position of the athletic director. Participants will address adopting functional technology for the rise in college esports, Wi-Fi inclusion for indoor and outdoor venues, and comparative analyses among connected and disconnected stadiums.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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