A Comparative Approach to Analyzing Local Expenditures and Visitor Profiles of two Wildlife Festivals
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wildlife festivals are growing in popularity and warrant additional studies of festival visitors. However, comparisons of visitor demographics, motivations, activities, and local expenditure patterns between festivals are difficult because different methods of measurement are used. By using a comparative approach, this study evaluates, with the same methods, the visitor characteristics of two similar wildlife festivals in Western Canada. While providing site-specific context, this study notes variations in total local expenditure patterns, visitor motivations, and visitor activities that result from, in part, different visitor demographics, activities offered, other attractions, and rates of overnight stays. Visitors to these festivals were slightly older and had higher educational levels than the general public, which was consistent with visitors to other wildlife festivals and ecotourists in general.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it