MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172042202 · doi:10.1177/0047287513497839

Developing a Tourism Innovation Typology

2013· article· en· W2172042202 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 · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphSheridan College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyTourismLiminalityInnovatorMarketingNorm (philosophy)BusinessSociologyPolitical scienceEntrepreneurship

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Innovation has become a buzzword, regularly cited to convey any improvement made, regardless of the extent of newness. Tourism innovation has historically been viewed as either incremental or radical, a binary developed within manufacturing. However, given that incremental improvements are the norm in the tourism sector and that radical innovation is an abnormality, the binary is not representative of tourism innovation. We suggest a three-level typology, based on field research in Europe and Australia, and informed by Rogers’s innovation diffusion model; the concept of liminality and its role in the search for tacit knowledge through weak network ties; and the need to ask ultimate (why) rather than proximate (what, how) questions. Since the term innovation is overused, we introduce three alternate concepts: the “artist,” who is comparable to the innovator; the “artisan,” who represents early innovation adopters; and the “painter,” who epitomizes the early and late majority.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.254 · 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