MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1854066877 · doi:10.1080/19388160.2013.841505

Modeling and Forecasting Inbound Tourism Demand for Long-Haul Markets of Beijing

2013· article· en· W1854066877 on OpenAlex
Eddy K. Tukamushaba, Vera Shanshan Lin, Thomas Bwire

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

VenueJournal of China Tourism Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeijingExponential smoothingEconometricsMean absolute percentage errorTourismMean squared errorStatisticEconomicsStatisticsDistributed lagForecast errorMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to identify the most influencing factors of Beijing's inbound tourism demand using the autoregressive distributed lag model (ADLM) and then generates forecasts of international tourist arrivals from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada for the period of 2010Q3–2015Q4. The general-to-specific modeling approach was adopted to achieve final models while the exponential smoothing method was used to produce forecasts for independent variables. Results show that factors such as “word of mouth” effect, income level of the origin source markets, the costs of tourism in Beijing, and the cost of tourism in the competing destinations are crucial determinants of the tourism flows from three long-haul international markets. A group of error measures, such as the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), root mean square percentage error (RMSPE), mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), and Theil's U statistic, were used to evaluate the forecasting accuracy. The results suggest that all three models have good forecasting abilities with the MAPEs ranging from 5.73% to 14.89%. Implications are discussed and recommendations as well as future research directions are provided.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.865

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.298 · 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