MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021907307 · doi:10.1080/15470140802195019

Key Performance Indicators of the MICE Industry and the Top 25 United States and Canadian CVBs

2008· article· en· W2021907307 on OpenAlex
David M. Pearlman

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Convention & Event Tourism · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConferences and Exhibitions Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPortland State University
KeywordsConventionPerformance indicatorTourismBusinessStandardizationKey (lock)MarketingEconomic indicatorAccountingPolitical scienceEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The conventions and meetings industry is very large and has many stakeholders. Several trade associations monitor and report industry activity; however, no one single document aggregates the various industry indicators. Approximately 15 years ago, the Chicago Convention and Tourism Bureau started an annual survey of convention and visitors bureaus (CVBs) regarding key performance indicators (KPIs). Additionally, other industry secondary data (e.g., labor rates and average daily airlift) were collected. In January of 2005, 111 CVBs in the United States and Canada were sent a self-administered survey. This report documents these findings with recommendations supporting standardization of recordkeeping and key performance indicator calculations.

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 score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.233 · 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