MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018690648 · doi:10.2167/joe185.0

Internet-based Ecotourism Marketing: Evaluating Canadian Sensitivity to Ecotourism Tenets

2008· article· en· W2018690648 on OpenAlexaffabout
Holly Donohoe, Roger D. Needham

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecotourism · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcotourismBusinessMarketingThe InternetTourismNature tourismEnvironmental resource managementGeographyComputer scienceEconomicsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The internet is providing a new and important electronic commerce medium for tourism. In the ecotourism case, it provides the primary mechanism for promoting ecotourism opportunities (providers) and for researching and planning ecotourism experiences (consumers). As a matter of concern, the literature establishes that the congruency of traditional ecotourism marketing with established ecotourism tenets is limited. Ecotourism may be on a ‘precarious course’ whereby the natural environment, long-term sustainability and legitimacy of the industry are at risk. The scale of the internet and its use to promote ‘disingenuous’ ecotourism products may accelerate negative outcomes. However, our understanding of internet-based ecotourism marketing – both delivery and outcomes – is limited. Through the application of a content analysis framework, this paper assesses the congruency of internet-based ecotourism marketing with ecotourism tenets. The study finds the use of the term ‘ecotourism’ and its tenets to market tourism experiences is a well-established internet-based marketing activity, and congruency between ecotourism tenets and ecotourism marketing messages is contentious amongst the Canadian sample providers. It supports antecedent claims that disingenuous ecotourism marketing is the norm, not the exception. Recommendations for improving marketing success, long-term sustainability of the industry and delivery of ‘genuine’ ecotourism products are presented.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations38
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EcotourismSame topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207