MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413755942 · doi:10.1123/cssm.2025-0011

Building Tomorrow’s Sports Fans: Strategic Initiatives in Youth Engagement

2025· article· en· W4413755942 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Soyoung Joo, Kimberley Preiksaitis

Bibliographic record

VenueCase Studies in Sport Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceSport managementPublic relationsAdvertisingAeronauticsBusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

National Hockey League fans in the United States are aging, presenting a challenge for the League’s future growth. The Toronto Maple Leafs (the Leafs), the National Hockey League’s most valuable franchise, recognize that younger generations engage with sports differently than traditional fans and often perceive hockey as less appealing compared to other major sports. Despite their loyal and historic fan base, the Leafs understand that sustaining long-term growth and cultural relevance requires attracting and engaging younger audiences. To address this, the Leafs launched the Next Gen initiative, transforming select home games into youth-focused experiences and leveraging digital strategies tailored to Gen Z. This case presents a critical question: How can National Hockey League teams—and other sports leagues and teams more broadly—build sustainable, younger fan bases essential for their future? Through this case study, students will analyze demographic trends in sports fandom, identify the challenges teams face in expanding their fan base, evaluate targeted marketing strategies, and propose innovative solutions to help marketing managers effectively engage and retain younger audiences.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCase Studies in Sport ManagementSame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207