MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Promotion of Ecotourism Principles by Whale-Watching Companies' Marketing Efforts

2012· article· en· W1993470591 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Nhial Tiitmamer Kur, Glen T. Hvenegaard

Bibliographic record

VenueTourism in Marine Environments · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of CalgaryInternational Fund for Animal Welfare
KeywordsEcotourismSustainabilityPromotion (chess)WhaleTourismEnvironmental educationBusinessMarketingIndigenousEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementGeographyFisheryPolitical scienceEcologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the whale-watching industry to be managed according to ecotourism principles, it should focus on nature-based attractions, provide environmental education, and promote environmental, economic, and social sustainability. Using 62 whale-watching brochures from 1998, 2005, and 2010, the study analyzed how whale-watching companies on Vancouver Island, Canada, marketed their businesses in line with these three ecotourism principles. The results suggest that Vancouver Island whale-watching companies promote most ecotourism principles, primarily those orientated to nature-based attractions and environmental education, but more attention could be paid to sustainability. The total number of environmental education activities and environmental sustainability initiatives increased over time, but most individual variables addressing the ecotourism principles did not change over time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.226
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTourism in Marine EnvironmentsSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207