MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235462873 · doi:10.33423/jabe.v22i11.3734

Is There a Consensus? An Experimental Trial to Test the Sufficiency of Methodologies Used to Measure Economic Impact

2020· article· en· W4235462873 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel A. Rascher, Giseob Hyun, Mark S. Nagel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business and Economics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSports Analytics and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNull hypothesisMeasure (data warehouse)Null (SQL)Test (biology)EconometricsRandomized experimentEconomicsStatisticsComputer scienceMathematicsData miningBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research utilizes local GDP of 383 MSAs in the U.S. to determine whether historical methods in the academic literature to measure the economic impact of sports are sensitive enough to generate conclusive results. An experiment is created and shows that commonly used methods fail to be able to detect the built-in-by-design injections of economic activity for the experimental group until very high levels of treatment of at least $300 million to $1 billion annually are present, thus providing evidence that Type I errors (rejecting a true null hypothesis) are likely to have occurred in some of the literature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.158
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.150 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Business and EconomicsSame topicSports Analytics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207