MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152350468 · doi:10.1177/0047287506288886

How Big, How Many? Enterprise Size Distributions in Tourism and Other Industries

2006· article· en· W2152350468 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 · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismBusinessDominance (genetics)Economic geographyIndustrial organizationRecreationEntertainmentMarketingDistribution (mathematics)AssertionEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tourism often is characterized as being dominated by small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), a characteristic that leads to certain challenges for the sector. This research article examines the degree of the assertion of dominance by SMEs and whether tourism is different than other industry sectors. The distribution of enterprise sizes within specific tourism industries also is examined. The results indicate that the percentage of small firms in tourism is lower than that in the overall business sector and that the percentage of medium-sized tourism firms is slightly higher than in the overall economy. Recreation and entertainment firms display the most uniform dispersal of enterprise sizes, whereas the travel trade shows a very high concentration of SMEs. Some implications of these findings are suggested.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.293 · 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