Sport event innovation: a preliminary conceptualization and directions for future research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize sport event innovation and propose a fruitful future research agenda for scholars. Design/methodology/approach Following Gilson and Goldberg's (2015) criterion of a good conceptual paper, the authors (a) provide a review of the central tenets of innovation and sport innovation literature and link them together within a new definition of sport event innovation, (b) expand the field by suggesting several theoretical perspectives for studying this area and (c) visually represent the links between each aspect of our conceptualization in a figure. Based on our definition, the authors also highlight illustrative examples of sport event innovation. Findings This paper provides an initial working definition of sport event innovation and offers avenues of sport event innovation research underpinned by various research perspectives (i.e. process of innovation, institutional theory, stakeholder theory, interorganizational relationships and knowledge-based view) likely to prove useful for the advancement of scholarship in sport event management. Additionally, a general recognition of the potential practical implication related to this paper is discussed. Originality/value This conceptual paper bridges the knowledge gap between sport event and innovation research by merging the independent literature and conceptualizing sport event innovation. In doing so, the authors provide an advantageous starting point for future research on innovation in the sport event context with a view towards advancing both theory and practice in this area.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".