Olympic Public Transportation Investments, Legacy, and City Prosperity: An Empirical Look at the 2000-2016 Summer Games
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
The complexity of hosting the Olympic Games has grown throughout its history. The financial risks to cities vying for the hosting rights are often viewed as excessive and consequently, fewer bids are being submitted in modern times. Critics suggest that public funds would be better spent supporting other social programs. However, history has demonstrated that host cities can use the Games to expand and modernize public transport systems to efficiently move people, increase accessibility, reduce personal travel and garner environmental benefits like improved air quality and less noise pollution. The authors examined the five Summer Olympic Games host cities between 2000-2016 using the City Prosperity Index (CPI) to measure city performance across six indexes to determine the accrued public transit benefits of hosting the Games. The authors hope this paper can provide a clear path forward for future Olympic bidders and city officials. Keywords: Olympic Games, City Prosperity Index, public transportation, investments
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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