MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1489400729

The influence of demographic factors on travel behaviour of visitors to nature-based products in South Africa

2012· article· en· W1489400729 on OpenAlexaff
Elmarie Slabbert, Lindie Du Plessis

Bibliographic record

VenueDialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValue (mathematics)MarketingSignificant differenceGeographySocioeconomicsSustainable developmentPsychologyAdvertisingBusinessSociologyPolitical scienceMathematicsStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nature-based products in South Africa are playing an increasingly important role in attracting visitors to the country. It thus becomes more important to understand the travel behaviour of visitors as this can influence future development and marketing strategies to these products. However information in this regard is lacking which creates challenges in the sustainable development of nature-based products. It is therefore the aim of this paper to determine the influence of demographic factors on travel behaviour of visitors to nature-based products in South Africa. A survey was done in 2010 which included nine National Parks in South Africa resulting in 1300 questionnaires. A factor analysis on travel motivations revealed five factors with the highest mean value obtained for „relaxation?. A second factor analysis for park experiences also revealed five factors with the highest mean value obtained for „activities and facilities. A t-test for Equality of Means was calculated for age, home language, presence of children and province, and revealed significant differences on both travel motivations and park experiences. Most differences exist on Relaxation and Learning for travel motivations and Maintenance for park experiences. An ANOVA was done on qualification and travel motivations and park preferences and revealed only one significant difference.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDialnet (Universidad de la Rioja)Same topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207