MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6996310107

Running the Numbers: Economic Impact and Demand Drivers of U.S. Marathon Events

2025· article· en· W6996310107 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

VenueDigitalCommons@Linfield (Linfield College) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic impact analysisQuarter (Canadian coin)TourismRace (biology)Event (particle physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marathon races have a significant impact on local economies. They can give the host city a big economic boost, directly impacting employment and tourism. For example, the 2022 Chicago Marathon generated $386 million for the city of Chicago, almost 3,000 jobs were created, and tourism sent $163 million into the local economy. Because of the importance of a marathon to a local economy, it is important that races optimize demand. This analysis uses a cross-sectional demand model with 31 observations to identify the factors determining a marathon event's impact across the United States. The effect of a marathon event depends on the number of participants, which is a measure of demand. Results suggest that the average price of entry fee, quarter of the year, and number of Instagram followers have a positive and statistically significant effect on the number of marathon participants. The inclusion of a 10k race and the number of Facebook followers have a negative correlation with the number of marathon participants.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.680

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.309 · 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