MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tourism and Animal Welfare

2013· article· en· W2018727837 on OpenAlex
David A. Fennell

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueTourism Recreation Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismWelfareBusinessTourism geographyNatural resource economicsEconomicsPolitical scienceMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Millions of animals are used annually in the tourism industry as captives for display and entertainment, as porters and carriers, as quarry to be hunted and fished, as well as for purposes of competition and sport. This paper investigates the extent to which the welfare of animals is considered in tourism, both in theory and practice. The paper broadly examines the concept of welfare from an interdisciplinary standpoint, including how it is defined and measured, the importance of sentience, pain and suffering in understanding welfare, and methods of enhancing animal welfare. The paper expands on animal welfare as it applies to tourism scholarship and tourism industry practice. Zoos and sled-dog tourism are examples used to illustrate animal welfare challenges in tourism, and a number of key questions are included in an effort to move the tourism and animal welfare agenda forward.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.289 · 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