MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Environmental Education in Tourism – A Comparison between Canada and Japan

2001· article· en· W2004560091 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospitality & Tourism Education · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHospitality and Tourism Education
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismSustainable tourismCurriculumEnvironmental educationTourism geographyEcotourismSustainable developmentEconomic growthPolitical scienceMarketingGeographyRegional scienceBusinessEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract With an increase in concern over the state of the planet, environmental education has come to the forefront. While environmental impacts and sustainable tourism development have dominated recent tourism research, this trend—until recently—has only received minimal coverage in the tourism curriculum. The purpose of this paper is to examine the models of the tourism programs at the university level and to investigate the level of environmental education in undergraduate tourism programs in Canadian and Japanese universities. Course descriptions were collected and analyzed. The Business/Management Model dominates Japanese universities while tourism in Canada is mainly offered under the Liberal Arts Model. There are few tourism degree programs with an environmental focus, however, a growing number of ‘tourism and environment’ courses are identified. With tourism emerging as one of the largest interrelated global industries, there is a need to increase the level of holistic environmental education across tourism degree programs.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.229 · 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