An assessment of ‘international best practice’ in visitor attraction management: does Scotland really lag behind?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper compares and contrasts selected management practices among visitor attractions in Scotland, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The catalyst for the study was the growing perception that management practices among visitor attractions in Scotland are becoming increasingly outdated and that the sector needs to learn from ‘international best practice’ in this respect. A postal questionnaire was sent to all paid‐admission visitor attractions in the four countries. In total, 1022 visitor attractions replied, representing an overall response rate of 41%. Chi‐square analysis was then used to test various hypotheses relating to the uptake of these management practices. A key conclusion is that although management practices do vary significantly among the four countries, Scotland does not necessarily lag behind. Indeed, Scottish visitor attractions seem to lead the way in many respects. Meanwhile, the study finds no strong evidence to suggest that visitor attractions in the other three countries have indeed identified and are following a common ‘international best practice’. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".