MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

On The Green: Consumer Perceptions of Returning to Golf Spectatorship Amid the Covid-19 Pandemic

2022· article· en· W4296473223 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joseph P. Miller, Jess C. Dixon

Bibliographic record

VenueEvent Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicAttendancePerceptionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Event (particle physics)PsychologyMarketingTourism2019-20 coronavirus outbreakRevenueBusinessAdvertisingPublic relationsPolitical scienceMedicineEconomicsEconomic growthDiseaseFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the sport industry has contended with stoppages of play and interrupted revenue streams. With sport beginning to "return to normal," there is uncertainty about the safe return of spectatorship and how live-event attendees perceive safety and precautionary measures amid a serious health emergency. The purpose of this study was to assess golf consumers' perceptions of following COVID-19 preventative measures at a small-scale professional golf event in Canada, and how these perceptions may influence their future event attendance. The results from a multiple linear regression analysis indicated that perceived benefits of COVID-19 vaccination and self-efficacy of following preventative measures significantly and positively influenced golf spectator's consideration of attending an event where these measures are enforced, while the perceived barriers of mask wearing significantly and negatively influenced attendance consideration. This has several practical implications for event management practitioners planning and hosting an event amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvent ManagementSame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207