Involvement, social impacts and subjective well-being: Brazilians’ experiences from Rio 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games
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
As primary funders of sport mega-events, host country residents deserve to reap benefits. Subjective well-being (SWB) can be one such positive outcome. Research analyzing the relationship between sport events and SWB is limited, and results are ambiguous. This study examines the effects of social impact experiences from the Rio 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games (Rio 2016) on SWB of host country residents, considering attitudinal involvement with the event. Using a cohort longitudinal design, data were collected during (n = 402) and six months after (n = 401) the event. Attitudinal involvement was significantly related to most factors of social impact experiences during, but not after Rio 2016. Social impact experiences were low during and even lower after Rio 2016, not contributing significantly to SWB of Brazilians. SWB was high during and after Rio 2016, but not significantly different between these moments. Rio 2016 did not affect the SWB of residents.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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