Legacies of a mega sporting event for healthy adolescent development: a case study of the 2010 Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous studies have considered the impact of hosting a mega sporting event on adults. Using the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics and Paralympics as a case study, this thesis is the first to consider the impact of such an event on adolescents over a decade pre and post the event. It investigates the legacies of the 2010 Games on physical activity, employment, and community connectedness, and the environmental, psychological and social mechanisms through which any legacies may have occurred. A mixed-methods approach was used which combined analyses of cross-sectional data from the BC Adolescent Health Survey and Homeless and Street Involved Youth Survey, with sports club membership data and stakeholder consultations. Using selfreport data from over 60,000 adolescents—including three subpopulations typically excluded from mega events (adolescents with a disability, experiencing homelessness, and at risk of incarceration)—the study considered positive and negative, planned and unplanned, tangible and intangible legacies, and the time and space in which they occurred (Preuss, 2016). Results differed by age, gender and location. For example, the 2010 Games were more likely to have both a positive and negative impact on homeless youth in host communities compared to non-host communities. However, across British Columbia, a positive perception of the Games’ impact was associated with regular physical activity. Vulnerable subpopulations generally reported more negative impacts of the Games, but those who reported positive impacts experienced some reduction in health disparities with the general population. However, rather than serving as a catalyst to close the gap in organised sports participation between adolescents with a physical disability and their peers, the disparity increased following the Games. Stakeholder consultations provided context to these findings, and offered insight into how future mega sporting events might be leveraged to support healthy adolescent development at the population and subpopulation level.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".