MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126207154 · doi:10.1177/004728750103900303

The Organization of Information in Memory for Pictures of Tourist Destinations: Are There Age-Related Differences?

2001· article· en· W2126207154 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 · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDestinationsTourismAdvertisingPsychologyEncoding (memory)Tourist destinationsDestination imageMarketingBusinessGeographyCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Older adults are a key leisure travel market segment. As a growth market for the travel industry, it is imperative to understand how older travelers respond to pictures and illustrations in destination advertising used to prompt the destination selection decision. This study investigated age-related differences in memory for pictures of tourist destinations. After receiving encoding instructions, 90 younger and 90 older adults viewed four pictures of tourist destinations and later recalled the content of the pictures. With destination familiarity and education variables statistically controlled, there were no age differences found in pictorial memory performance. Implications of, and possible explanations for, the results are discussed.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.313 · 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