Modelling relationships between road access and recreational fishing site choice while accounting for spatial complexities
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study examined the relationships between road access and the fishing site choices of northern Ontario recreational anglers. A revealed preference choice model (random utility model) was estimated with fishing trip data from an angling diary with resident anglers from the Thunder Bay and Wawa areas. The results showed that poor quality gravel roads and trails heavily and negatively impacted fishing site choices by Thunder Bay anglers who fished only during the open water season. Poorer quality roads and trails had much less impact on the fishing site choices of other Thunder Bay anglers. Wawa area anglers were, on average, less impacted by poor quality roads and trails than were Thunder Bay area anglers. Several methods of incorporating spatial complexities into the fishing site choice models were also investigated. First, an accessibility attribute was included in the models to account for potential spatial cognitive limitations of anglers when choosing fishing sites. While this attribute had a significant effect in the models, the effect was different for Thunder Bay and Wawa area anglers. A second spatial measure focused on whether anglers took fishing trips near their previously chosen fishing sites. Anglers often took fishing trips back to the fishing sites they previously chose. Thunder Bay area anglers also tended to take fishing trips that were close to their previously chosen fishing site. Finally, various generalized extreme value models were used to determine if nearby sites have correlated unobserved utilities. Results from a cross-nested logit model, which permit researchers to allocate fishing alternatives into more than one nest, showed that spatially near fishing alternatives shared some unobserved utility. Therefore, nearby fishing sites were better substitutes than were far away fishing sites. Generalized nested logit models were estimated to assess whether one global parameter could capture the correlation pattern among the unobserved utilities for the fishing sites. A global parameter was rejected in favour of nest specific parameters. While not truly a local level analysis, the generalized nested logit model was sufficient to capture some spatial heterogeneity present in the correlations among the unobserved utilities.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle