MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062571576 · doi:10.2310/7060.2001.24239

Safety of Travel in South Africa: The Kruger National Park

2006· review· en· W2062571576 on OpenAlexaff
David N Dürrheim, Leo Braack, D. Grobler, Helena B. Bryden, Rick Speare, Peter A. Leggat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Travel Medicine · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicZoonotic diseases and public health
Canadian institutionsKruger (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNational parkTravel medicineAir travelSocioeconomicsEnvironmental protectionArchaeologyPathologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[Extract] South Africa is a flourishing tourist destination and the South African Tourism Board (SATOUR) recorded a steady growth in international visitors of about 11% per annum for the period from 1994–1999.1 The four most popular sites visited by tourists are Cape Town and environs, the Garden Route, Oudtshoorn ostrich farms, and the Kruger National Park. The Kruger National Park(KNP), which at over 1.949 million hectares, is the largest wildlife or nature reserve in a single African country, affords the visitor the opportunity to appreciate a magnificent variety of flora and fauna, in their natural environment (Fig. 1). In 1998 almost one million tourists visited the KNP.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Travel MedicineSame topicZoonotic diseases and public healthFrench-language works237,207