{"id":"W2034460486","doi":"10.1080/14927713.2005.9651336","title":"Examining policy preferences of recreationists: A case of a fisheries management plan","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Leisure/Loisir","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"Laurentian University; Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry","funders":"Ministry of Natural Resources","keywords":"Recreational fishing; Preference; Recreation; Choice modelling; Fishing; Fisheries management; Plan (archaeology); Revealed preference; Latent class model; Business; Discrete choice; Fishery; Economics; Marketing; Geography; Computer science; Microeconomics; Econometrics; Ecology","routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":true,"ca_venue":true,"about_ca":true,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":false},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00343138,0.000233324,0.0003405279,0.0005434606,0.00149321,0.001620469,0.0006081487,0.001552551,0.00482793],"category_scores_gemma":[0.006922364,0.0001974642,0.000636584,0.001038826,0.001493137,0.001085018,0.0006860779,0.001245462,0.000179052],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.004123865,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.001424402,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1779462,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.3022707,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9984102,0.001054477,0.00003651689,0.00009143786,0.0001232647,0.0002839471],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9937844,0.00483169,0.0005428517,0.0003525573,0.0002417252,0.0002468584],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","study_design_scores_codex":[0.002106634,0.001769418,0.5327486,0.0002460622,0.0003554595,0.01086425,0.0170624,0.2057433,0.005805382,0.1647109,0.004463153,0.05412455],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003918673,0.000910311,0.3263767,0.0001626839,0.0002332926,0.001337756,0.0704546,0.5204712,0.003633149,0.05810046,0.01770215,0.0002259119],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9903375,0.0000398982,0.003211609,0.0009373218,0.000003247073,0.00003291845,0.0001348317,0.000003330285,0.005299302],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9972903,0.00004051476,0.001730155,0.00004043945,0.000002311326,0.00001869882,0.00004588468,0.000001227028,0.0008305375],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1779462,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3538208,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.1351829551913739,"score_gpt":0.240216399207039,"score_spread":0.1050334440156651,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}