MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Adventure Tourism in Africa: The Case of Livingstone, Zambia

2004· article· en· W195736945 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christian M. Rogerson

Bibliographic record

VenueGeography · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTourism, Volunteerism, and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismAdventureDiversification (marketing strategy)GeographyTourism geographyEconomic growthEconomyBusinessMarketingHistoryEconomicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adventure tourism is attracting an increasing scholarly literature, which is particularly focused upon New Zealand, Canada and parts of Asia. Research on adventure tourism in Africa is little developed. The aim of this article is to analyse the growth of adventure tourism at the Zambian city of Livingstone, which is emerging as Africa's ‘adventure tourism capital’.Since 1996 Zambia has sought to promote programmes of economic diversification, partly by marketing the country's tourism experience as the ‘real Africa’. Livingstone and its adventure tourism activities focused on the Zambezi River and Victoria Falls as the leading centre of Zambian tourism. The city's adventure tourism economy has been opened up by foreign investors, mainly from South Africa, Zimbabwe and New Zealand. The cluster of adventure tourism operations is linked to the upgrading of the local tourism infrastructure, most importantly with improved airport facilities and new major South African investments in hotels. Currently, the majority of visitors to Livingstone are intra-African tourists rather than intercontinental tourists. Although Livingstone's recent expansion of tourism has benefited, to some degree, from political instability in Zimbabwe, future propects would be enhanced by stability in Zimbabwe which would improve percenptions of southern Africa as a whole be international tourists.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations9
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeographySame topicTourism, Volunteerism, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207