MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Study on the Faith Construction Issue under Economic Angel

2010· article· en· W1791994481 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Tourism and Spaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFaithTourismPolitical scienceHumanitiesGovernment (linguistics)ChinaPhilosophyLawTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the tourism faith default of China’s tourism industry has become a fiercely harmful problem, strengthening the faith construction becomes an inevitable choice and the urgent issue. Seen from the economic angle, the tourism industry faith default in China is caused by three reasons. These are the asymmetrical information among the economic main bodies, limited gaming in this industry, and “the government failure”. Therefore, the tourism enterprises, the government, and tourism industry associations should joint efforts to develop the tourism faith construction and build a good faithful environment. Key words: Tourism Faith, Faith Default, Faith Construction Resume: Actuellement, un serieux probleme du manque de l’honnetete s' apparait dans le tourisme, c’est un certain choix et une obligation pressante d’intensifier l’edification de l’honnetete du tourisme en vue de realiser nos developpements dans ce domaine. Au point de vue d’economie, la cause principale de ce probleme est des informations asymetriques et des concurrences restreintes entre les parties principales d’economie dans le tourisme, ainsi que “le sans controle du gouvernement”. Il faut que les entreprise touristiques, le gouvernement, les associations touristiques travaillent ensemble de pratiquer la construction de l’honnetete du tourisme et de bâtir l’environnement honnete. Mots-Cles: l’honnetete du tourisme , le manque de l’honnetete , l’edification de l’honnetete

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 studies0.0040.002
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.274 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicReligious Tourism and SpacesFrench-language works237,207