Examining the relationship among constraints, facilitators and ski participation in the host city of the 2022 Winter Olympics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The study’s purpose is to investigate the constraints and facilitators influencing skiing participation in Beijing. This research includes three segments based on the frequency of skiing participation (i.e. non-, low-frequency-, and high-frequency skiers). By doing so, the study offers an enhanced understanding of the Chinese skiing market and unveils insights assisting industry professionals to effectively address their customers' diverse needs and expectations. Design/methodology/approach An online survey was developed based on prior research and consisted of four sections: (1) skiing participation; (2) constraints; (3) facilitators; (4) demographics. Items in the constraint and facilitator scale were measured using a 7-point Likert scale. A total of 409 participants completed the survey. The participants included 137 non-skiers, 134 low-frequency skiers, and 138 high-frequency skiers. Findings Through an exploratory factor analysis, three constructs emerged: general constraints, facilitators and learning constraints. As expected, facilitators were a positive predictor of skiing participation. Importantly, the emergent construct of learning constraints was a negative predictor of skiing and yet, the construct of general constraints was insignificant. Furthermore, the three segments differ significantly in household status, income, and education level. Originality/value These results support previous research noting the relevance in skiing participation of the dimensions: facilitators and learning constraints. The findings point to the need for ski resorts in Beijing to offer instructional sessions for beginners so they may become familiar with skiing fundamentals and enhance their confidence, particularly among nonskiers and low-frequency skiers.
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".