MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014042591 · doi:10.3727/152599509789659731

Examining Visitor Mindfulness at a Cultural Event

2008· article· en· W2014042591 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christine M. Van Winkle, Kenneth F. Backman

Bibliographic record

VenueEvent Management · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisitor patternMindfulnessFeelingPsychologyEvent (particle physics)Control (management)Social psychologyPerceived controlClinical psychologyManagementComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined visitor mindfulness at a cultural festival. Mindfulness is considered a state of being that requires individuals to engage in active information processing, enabling them to be adaptive and responsive to information in their surroundings. Mindfulness is believed to result in more learning, high satisfaction, greater understanding, and greater feeling of control over behavior. Event managers must find ways to enhance visitor satisfaction as well as minimize negative impacts that result from events, and encouraging visitor mindfulness could contribute to these outcomes. This study took place over a 2-week period in July 2005 at the Winnipeg Fringe Theatre Festival in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Results presented demonstrate that the more interested visitors were in the festival the higher they scored on the mindfulness scale. Visitor level of mindfulness was positively related to their satisfaction with the event and their feelings of control over their own contribution to impacts. Implications for event managers are discussed.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations47
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvent ManagementSame topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207