MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107178316 · doi:10.1177/0047287504272032

Benefits Segmentation of Visitors to Latin America

2005· article· en· W2107178316 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

VenueJournal of Travel Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismLatin AmericansDemographicsMarketingAccommodationBusinessMarket segmentationSegmentationAdvertisingGeographyPolitical scienceComputer scienceSociologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research presents an effective segmentation of Latin American tourists and thereby provides invaluable input and guidance for destination marketers in regard to strategic planning for the region’s tourist provision. Four distinct segments are identified based on the benefits sought, and these are profiled with respect to demographics, travel behavior, expectations about the infrastructure, local environment, services, and costs, as well as the visitors’ personalities and interests. Globally, the most important decision drivers are found to be safety, flight and accommodation availability, and affordability. This research also presents an overview of benefits segmentation literature on tourism.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.339 · 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