MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020676416 · doi:10.1108/09596110810866136

An analysis of the gaming industry in the Niagara region

2008· article· en· W2020676416 on OpenAlexaffabout
Donald J. MacLaurin, Steve Wolstenholme

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsRegional Municipality of NiagaraUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismValuation (finance)RevenueOriginalityCustomer baseMarketingBusinessValue (mathematics)EconomyEconomicsFinanceGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to profile the casino gaming industry in Niagara Falls Canada, home to Canada's largest and busiest casino infrastructure. The research also investigated the larger role played by casino gaming to the overall tourism industry and economy of the greater Niagara Falls region. Design/methodology/approach – Research methods included a comprehensive literature review combined with a structured interview with a leading executive in Niagara casino resort operations. Findings – The Canadian gaming industry has experienced significant growth in revenues, participation rates, and employment in the last decade. Major shifts in the core customer base of Canadian Niagara casino resorts have occurred in the past decade as a result of major valuation changes between US and Canadian currencies, significant challenges in border crossings for US visitors to Canada and the growth and development of new casino resorts operated by the Seneca Indian nations in neighboring New York State. Originality/value – An up‐to‐date synopsis of current operating challenges and opportunities for the casino gaming sector in the Niagara region is provided. Results should be of interest to academics, gaming and tourism officials and potential investors.

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 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Contemporary Hospitality ManagementSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207