MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120599279 · doi:10.1080/14724040308668137

Whale-watching Tourists in West Scotland

2003· article· en· W2120599279 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
E. C. M. Parsons, Clark Warburton, Andy J. Woods-Ballard, A. Hughes, P. F. Johnston, Henry Walter Bates, Michael Lück

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecotourism · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhaleMinke whaleQuarter (Canadian coin)GeographyWhalingFisheryRight whaleBalaenopteraArchaeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2000, a survey was conducted on whale-watching tourists in west Scotland. Slightly more females went whale-watching than expected and generally whale-watchers were middle-aged, although there was a notable proportion of younger participants. Whale-watchers were more likely to be accompanied by children than general tourists. Whale-watchers were also predominantly middle-class and well-educated. Most (83.8%) were British, a quarter of which were Scottish. Seventy percent were repeat visitors to the area. Sixty-two per cent of whale-watchers stated that they were on their first whale-watching trip, and of those who had been whale-watching before, the majority (43.3%) had done so in the UK (90.4% in Scotland). Most whale-watchers (81.4%) had previously been aware of the occurrence of cetaceans in West Scotland and 75.2% could correctly name at least one local species; the most commonly cited species being the minke whale (31.7%). However, fewer than half of the tourists were aware of whale-watching opportunities in the region and 40% of whale-watchers had only become aware of whale-watching opportunities when they arrived in the area, demonstrating a need to publicise and promote the availability of whale-watching trips in West Scotland.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations57
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EcotourismSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207