MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Shopping tourism and destination development: Dubai as a case study.

2014· article· en· W2099493595 on OpenAlex
Naeema Alhosani, Esmat Zaidan

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueArab world geographer · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismBusinessAdvertisingMarketingSample (material)Quality (philosophy)Variety (cybernetics)GeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tourism has been and continues to be an important source of income for many countries in the world. This study explores the concept of shopping in Dubai tourism and identifies the perceived important characteristics of Dubai as a shopping destination, as well as tracing the factors or the competitive advantages of Dubai as a shopping destination for Saudis tourists, who represent Dubai's main source of tourism. Shopping patterns among Saudi tourists are identified based on their frequency of shopping. A survey was used to obtain primary data that included a sample of 1 111 Saudis tourists visiting different shopping places in Dubai. The results show that Saudi tourists define Dubai as their top shopping destination because they perceive it as offering significant advantages: a wide range of impressive retail services, high-quality shopping malls, a wide variety of products and shopping venues, substantial shopping promotions and bargains, unique annual shopping festivals, the creativity of combining the s...

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.297 · 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