Researching the Management of Visitor Attractions: International Comparative Study Issues
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paucity of literature in the field of visitor attractions, combined with the virtual vacuum of literature on international comparative research methodologies in tourism generally, and more specifically within the visitor attractions sector, together serve as the catalytic focus for this paper. Where studies have been completed on visitor attractions in the international arena, they have often been practitioner-led and lack the depth of analysis and rigour required for academic scrutiny. This paper will begin to fill this gap, by evaluating the methodological options available to academics when researching visitor attractions in different countries. Reference will be made throughout the paper to an international comparative study undertaken by the authors at visitor attractions in Scotland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The paper concludes with a synthesis of those methodological issues deemed to be of benefit to future researchers wishing to advance their understanding of the management of visitor attractions in different countries around the world.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it