MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025228861 · doi:10.1108/sbm-05-2018-0037

Impact studies in sport: the development of an assessment process model

2020· article· en· W3025228861 on OpenAlexaff
Norm O’Reilly, Gashaw Abeza, Andy Fodor, Eric MacIntosh, John Nadeau, Lane MacAdam, Gary Pasqualicchio, Mark Dottori, Heather J. Lawrence

Bibliographic record

VenueSport Business and Management An International Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsNipissing UniversityUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredibilityScope (computer science)Economic impact analysisImpact assessmentProcess (computing)Social impact assessmentSocietal impact of nanotechnologyOriginalityValue (mathematics)Empirical researchManagement scienceBusinessComputer scienceEconomicsPolitical scienceQualitative researchSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The criticisms put forward against economic impact studies lead to a key question: “Is it possible to measure the impact of sporting properties and events in a holistic, conservative, and reliable way?” This research endeavors to build on the academic literature to add to the scope and rigor of economic impact research by proposing an impact assessment process model for practitioners that facilitates employment of a holistic, conservative and reliable impact study and seeks to address these concerns. Design/methodology/approach Using seven identified key realities that highlight the challenges facing impact studies, and adopting a collaborative self-ethnographic methodological approach, the work highlights lessons learned from four empirical economic impact studies undertaken by the authors over a five-year period. Findings The study provides a broad view of impact studies, which extend beyond financial implications and provides a more inclusive methodology. Particularly, the proposed impact assessment process model seeks to improve the credibility of impact studies by facilitating a holistic approach that incorporates direct, indirect and intangible impacts. Research limitations/implications The proposed model has value to researchers and is designed to improve the overall credibility of economic impact methodology. It also provides a more accurate measure of direct impact while considering intangible and indirect impacts, including social/community impacts. Practical implications The proposed model has value to and practitioners and is designed to improve the overall credibility of economic impact methodology. It also provides a more accurate measure of direct impact while considering intangible and indirect impacts, including social/community impacts. Originality/value The proposed process model to measure the impact of a sports event is a needed element in the world of funding, managing and implementing events of all sizes.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0110.015
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.355 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSport Business and Management An International JournalSame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207