"We … We Had Fun, We Did Have Fun": Long-term Sport Event Outcomes and Community Tensions
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
Publicly funded sport events (may) affect the relationship between governments and residents. The use of taxpayers' money creates certain expectations, including community-focused event outcomes. The purpose of this article is to investigate the alignment of event objectives and outcomes between host residents and those responsible for bringing a publicly funded sport event to a city, namely the government. The 2011 and 2019 Canada Winter Games, two publicly funded, non-mega-, multisport events, provided the context for the study. Data were collected through documents, interviews, and focus groups. Our findings are articulated in three themes, highlighting that although residents often evaluated their respective events positively, event experiences diverged from those of event providers. Our findings support the need for multisectoral event portfolios to pursue community objectives and public engagement strategies throughout the event planning process. These results may help event providers meet the needs of host residents when hosting future sport events.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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