Municipal Perspectives on Collaboration in Regional Sport Event Hosting: A Case Study of the Niagara 2022 Canada 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
Increasingly, sport event bids indicate that multiple jurisdictions within a given region will collaborate on hosting efforts, so that they can share the risks, leveraging opportunities, and benefits of hosting. However, such hosting arrangements are complex and involve many stakeholders, including municipal departments. In this case study, we examine the perspectives of municipal actors involved in a regional approach to hosting the Niagara 2022 Canada Summer Games. Framed with concepts of collaboration and organizational capacity, we used social network analysis and semi-structured interviews to collect data. Our findings include a sociogram as well as a discussion of: (1) buying in to a regional approach; (2) addressing variability in size, scope, and capacity across municipalities; (3) networking and communication among municipalities; and (4) assessing the regional hosting approach. Through this case study, we contribute a nuanced understanding of municipal actors’ perspectives and experiences of collaboration in the regional hosting process.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it