MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6995595797

2010 Olympic Costs and Benefits

2003· report· en· W6995595797 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIssue Lab (Candid) · 2003
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsidyOrder (exchange)PridePoint (geometry)Social costCost–benefit analysisEconomic impact analysisCapital (architecture)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hosting the 2010 Winter Olympics cannot be justified on economic grounds alone. "The Games are not attractive from a financial point of view," says Dr. Marvin Shaffer, co-author of the study and one of the architects of British Columbia's Multiple Account Guidelines (used for undertaking cost-benefit analyses of major capital projects). "If Vancouver hosts the 2010 Winter Olympics, there will be a substantial net cost to British Columbians in the order of $1.2 billion."Alan Greer, co-author of the study, says the economic benefits of hosting the Games are limited. "Job creation estimates have been wildly exaggerated. Realistic employment estimates range from 1,500 to 5,600 jobs created over the seven years the Games are estimated to have an impact. Based on a net cost of $1.2 billion to host the Games, that's a public subsidy of $220,000 to $820,000 per job."The Olympics also carry significant environmental and social risks. "There are some innovative ideas in the Bid Book for mitigating social and environmental costs, but many of them haven't been budgeted and, if implemented, will likely mean increases to the overall cost of the Games." says Celine Mauboules, co-author of the study."That's not to say the Olympics don't have benefits," says Mauboules. "The positive impacts for British Columbians include the pride and enjoyment from hosting the Games, the opportunity to attend events, and the use of new sports, housing and transportation facilities, to name a few."Seth Klein, the CCPA's BC Director, says the question for policy makers and the public is: Do the benefits outweigh the substantial price tag that comes with hosting the Games? "To date, the public has received inadequate information about the costs and benefits of hosting the Winter Olympics. We've basically done government's job for them. Both federal and provincial guidelines recommend the use of multiple account evaluations for such an initiative. Yet neither level of government, nor the Bid Corporation, has undertaken such an evaluation."The Olympics have too often been pitched as having miraculous economic powers," says Klein "They do not. Like all public policy choices, they come with benefits and costs, and will require trade-offs."

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.011

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIssue Lab (Candid)French-language works237,207