Examining Long-term Organizational Forms Surrounding Leverage and Legacy Delivery Of Canadian Major Sport Events
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
This study explored the long-term organizational forms that are responsible for leverage and legacy delivery of major sport events. Comparative cases from the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Winter Games and the 2015 Toronto Pan Am/Parapan American Games were used to examine what mechanisms previous host cities have used. The findings from this study demonstrated that important organizational mechanisms contributing to strategic leveraging efforts included frequent collaboration from earliest point; distinction from the OC; the use of binding policy to maintain partnerships; clearly defined roles, responsibilities, and guidelines of conduct; and consistent, sustainable leadership. The collaborative nature of these organizational forms provided opportunities for organizations to increase their leveraging capacity. A conceptual framework for leveraging sustainable outcomes within the complex and multilayered nature of collaboration is also developed as a starting point for organizers looking to deliver lasting impacts from an event, as well as for scholars examining event legacy and/or leveraging strategies.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it