MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038905842 · doi:10.1177/1356766714532464

A critical review of camping research and direction for future studies

2014· review· en· W2038905842 on OpenAlex
Ed Brooker, Marion Joppe

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

VenueJournal Of Vacation Marketing · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphSheridan College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationAccommodationLiminalityTourismOrder (exchange)MarketingSociologyPublic relationsGeographyAdvertisingPolitical scienceBusinessPsychologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Camping is a popular form of accommodation and outdoor recreation, providing liminal opportunities to escape, rejuvenate, and socialize with family, friends, and fellow campers. Surprisingly, limited academic research has been conducted on the business and market segments of campgrounds. In order to, at least partly, address this identified gap, a literature review was undertaken of the articles published on campgrounds and caravan parks in the past 50 years, the majority of which have originated in either the United States or Australia. This article presents the results of this investigation, the aim of which was to (1) identify and classify research on US campgrounds and Australian caravan parks, (2) describe the main trends revealed, and (3) present a future research agenda.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.288
GPT teacher head0.572
Teacher spread0.284 · 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