MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045586056 · doi:10.1300/j149v03n04_04

An Analysis of Cruise Ship Rating Guides

2002· article· en· W2045586056 on OpenAlex

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

VenueInternational Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCruise Tourism Development and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCruiseAeronauticsBusinessPsychologyTransport engineeringApplied psychologyAdvertisingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Cruise vacations are a relatively new tourism product that has evolved from the maritime passenger transportation industry. An introduction to the Cruise industry is followed by an analysis of cruise guides with star ratings, which are widely available in bookstores and libraries. Although these appear well researched including a tremendous amount of information, each guide's rating system is different and can confuse readers' considering a vacation cruise. A linear regression of the star ratings for each of four popular guides shows that as much as 70% of the ratings are explained by only two variables: year of launch and space/passenger ratio. It was found that consumers who wish to compare ships efficiently could do so by simply dividing the space/passenger ratio by 10.

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 score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.320 · 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