MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031870230 · doi:10.1108/09596110610641993

Backpacking and hostel‐picking: an analysis from Canada

2006· article· en· W2031870230 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. Jean Hecht, David Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemographicsTourismOriginalityService (business)GeographySociologyAdvertisingMarketingDemographyBusinessQualitative researchSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This research paper aims to better understand the characteristics of backpackers who stay at hostels in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), Canada, and their current service preferences. Design/methodology/approach Primary data were collected by carrying out interviews with 20 experienced backpackers from seven countries. As a result, 15 critical backpackers' requirements were identified and used as the base for the questionnaire developed for the next phase of field research. At this phase, 385 backpackers from 35 countries completed the questionnaires. Findings The backpackers cannot be treated as a homogeneous group, and there are differences due to demographics of gender, age and country of origin. The traditional youth tourist backpacker (15‐25 years of age) viewed backpacking as more a social and cultural experience than the transition backpacker (26‐29 years of age) or contemporary backpacker (30 years of age and older). As age increased, so did the backpacker's desire and willingness to pay for privacy. Asian and North/South Americans required more hotel type services than Australians and Europeans. Originality/value In conclusion, the paper provides hostels in GTA with future directions grouped as four key factors.

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)0.003
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations77
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Contemporary Hospitality ManagementSame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207