MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2514182613

Best Practices in Implementing Tourism Satellite Account (TSA) and Its Ad Hoc Extensions: A Comparative Study in Selected Countries

2016· article· en· W2514182613 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ahmad Muhammad Ragab

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismDeveloping countryRegional scienceBest practiceProcess (computing)Developed countryBusinessGeographyPolitical scienceEconomic growthComputer scienceEconomicsSociologyManagement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Tourism Satellite Account (TSA) is an integrated statistical tool for measuring the economic importance of tourism in countries or regions. It allows measuring the relative weight of the tourism sector within a national and sub-national economy in a reliable and systematic approach as well as leading the process of developing a national system of tourism statistics which is considered as a challenging practice so far. This study aims to investigate the international experiences in implementing the TSA and in developing TSA's ad hoc extensions for the sake of suggesting guidelines to be adopted by countries as best practices in this area of tourism analysis. To achieve this study objectives, 6 countries' experiences in implementing TSA and its ad hoc extensions have been selected as the study's multiple cases; three developed countries (Canada- Australia- Denmark) and three developing countries (South Africa- Saudi Arabia - Egypt). The study concludes that, there is a clear disparity in the implementation level of TSA in the countries in question. Considering the study findings, a phased multi-stage process for research and development of the TSA and its ad hoc extensions is recommended.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research→French-language works237,207→