Governmental Approach to Major Events in New Zealand
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
For the past 20 years, New Zealand, a country relatively remote in geographi- cal terms, has been actively communicating with the international visitor market in order to construct a global brand for the country. As a tourist destination, New Zealand offers an impressive range of natural and cultural attractions, out- door activities, urban tourism and a diverse event calendar. In 2017, the country welcomed 3.7m visitors, with the market forecast to grow by 7.5% in 2018. The active role of the Government in the visitor economy makes New Zealand an attractive investment destination. Extensive marketing campaigns, significant expansion of transport connections, private investment in infrastructure and the hotel sector indicate that New Zealand will continue its sustainable tourism growth over the coming years. Major events have been recognised as a powerful and successful instrument that can brand the country directly to the target audience. The ever-increasing numbers of international event visitors to New Zealand, as well as recent success in securing bids for such large-scale international events as 2011 Rugby World Cup, 2015 ICC Cricket World Cup, 2015 FIFA U-20 World cup and 2017 World Master Games, demonstrate the relevance of the employed strategy. This chapter reviews a national event portfolio approach in New Zealand. The approach is characterised by a strong top-down orientation, where the Govern- ment plays the leading role in determining current economic and socio-cultural objectives for the major event industry, implementation of the national event strategy and evaluation of the investment in major events. The data for this chap- ter have been collected by document selection and analysis and by interviewing several industry experts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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