An Examination of Sponsor Outcomes at Different Tiers of IndyCar Sponsorship
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
While frequently examined in events and service research, satisfaction has received little examination in the context of sponsorship. Given the shared characteristics of both service and sport-derived products, this study, which was framed by the theory of planned behavior, aimed to examine the influence of event satisfaction, motorsport involvement, and sponsor-event fit on both sponsor image and behavioral intentions for a title sponsor of an IndyCar event. In addition, the study explored the influence of satisfaction and motorsport involvement on sponsor awareness and image for official event sponsors. The results indicated that the measured constructs generally exhibited similar relationships with title and official sponsors and that there was no significant relationship between satisfaction and behavioral intention. Thus, an individual's preconceptions of an event may be more important than their event experiences in developing behavioral intentions. Further implications for future strategy for IndyCar sponsors and event organizers are also discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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