Sporting events and social resonance: the Arctic Winter Games model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on resonance theory, this article aims to present the Arctic Winter Games (AWG) as an alternative model of sporting event in late modernity—one that fosters conditions conducive to experiencing social resonance. This analysis is based on a qualitative research design with a multimethod approach that included archival analysis, interviews, surveys, and observations conducted during the 2023 AWG. Our analysis delineates numerous key elements of social resonance, including frequent expressions of affection and self-efficacious response; all supported by fundamental preconditions such as openness, curiosity, and vulnerability. In addition, we examine four critical spaces that shape the potential for resonance at the AWG: organizational objectives as well as spatial, temporal, and psychological conditions. This research contributes to the existing body of knowledge by highlighting the deep relationships fostered by sporting events, illustrating how resonance theory offers unique insights beyond traditional social relationship frameworks. Moreover, it presents resonance as a novel framework for understanding how alternative sporting event models can structure conditions conducive to meaningful social relationships, thereby offering a critical and practical perspective beyond conventional competition-driven approaches.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".