Tourism in Niagara: identifying challenges and finding solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a relevant backdrop for the Worldwide Hospitality snd Tourism Themes (WHATT) theme issue on tourism challenges and solution in the Niagara region, and to present the key points discussed during the 2007 WHATT roundtable discussion in the Niagara region, Canada. Design/methodology/approach The approach of this paper is more a narrative one. It also draws data from a series of web sites to analyse the past and present performance of tourism. Findings This paper provides a historic perspective of the Niagara region and presented in the context of tourism in the world, Americas, Canada, and Ontario. Then it travels back to explain the origins of WHATT and its scholarly journey over the years. In capturing the essence of the 2007 WHATT roundtable discussion in Niagara, the paper provides a strong foundation for the other nine articles, which follow in this WHATT theme issue. Originality/value In a world of theories, this paper provides fresh perspectives on many relevant ideas by using original expert views. Readers who are interested in the Niagara region would benefit from this paper.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".