Bibliographic record
Abstract
South Africa’s successful hosting of the 2010 FIFA World Cup has profiled the country and specific host cities as significant players in the arena of sport tourism events. In particular, the picturesque backdrop of Cape Town’s scenery and an impressive stadium ensured that the city retained its position as Africa’s most prominent tourist destination (Alexander, 2010). With the event over, significant attention has been placed on the legacy impacts of hosting mega-events (Alegi, 2007; Cornelissen et al., 2011; Cottle, 2011; Swart et al., 2011), including long-term sustainability considerations, particularly in relation to the significant infrastructural investments made using public funds. There have been and continue to be several debates pertaining to whether South Africa should have hosted the World Cup, with the general position being that given the massive development backlogs and high poverty levels in the country, the money could have been better spent in addressing these issues. Additionally, there is a focus on legacy aspects intended to examine the long-term positive and negative impacts of Africa hosting a mega-event for the first time.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.002 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".