An Inter-Comparison of the Holiday Climate Index (HCI) and the Tourism Climate Index (TCI) in Europe
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much research has been devoted to quantifying optimal or unacceptable climate conditions both generally and for specific tourism segments or activities over the last 10 years. This knowledge is not incorporated in the Tourism Climate Index (TCI), which has also been subject to other substantial critiques. To more accurately assess the climatic suitability of destinations for leisure tourism, the Holiday Climate Index (HCI) was developed. A major advancement of the HCI is that its variable rating scales and the component weighting system are based on this aforementioned literature of tourists’ stated climatic preferences. This paper will discuss the design of the HCI and how the limitations of the TCI were overcome. It then presents an inter-comparison of the results from HCI:Urban and TCI for geographically diverse urban destinations across Europe. The results illustrate how the HCI:Urban rates the climate of many cities higher than the TCI, particularly in shoulder seasons and the winter months, which is more consistent with observed visitation patterns. The results empirically demonstrate that use of the TCI should be discontinued.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it