Why Do Local Residents Oppose Olympic Bids? An Electoral Perspective From Calgary 2026
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
Demands for public input on Olympic bids have made local referenda an increasingly common feature of the Olympic bid process. This case study advances our knowledge about the factors that lead local residents to support or oppose an Olympic bid by presenting the results of a representative survey of local residents at the time of an Olympic bid plebiscite in Calgary, Canada. Building on past research, five correlates of Olympic bid voting behavior are identified: sociodemographic characteristics, local civic identity, political partisanship, attitudes towards government spending, and local political leadership. While all five factors are related to support or opposition to the Olympic bid, civic identity and fiscal conservativism were particularly powerful predictors of preferences. The data suggest that pro-Olympic and anti-Olympic coalitions have an unusual character that challenge those involved in Olympic advocacy.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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