Inciting tourist accommodation managers to make their establishments accessible to people with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to report on the research carried out in Québec as part of a master’s degree for the IÉSEG School of Management on behalf of Kéroul, an organization whose mission is to make tourism and culture accessible to people with disabilities. Established over 30 years ago and active largely in Québec, Kéroul has observed a lingering reluctance on the part of tourism industry operators to meeting the needs of disabled visitors. In the research, we set out to answer the following question: how can Kéroul encourage tourism establishments to develop accessibility? In light of the hotel industry’s key role in tourism, exploratory research was conducted with 30 Québec hotel managers through extensive individual interviews. Design/methodology/approach The exploratory research took the form of in-depth interviews with hotel managers. The sample was selected after conferring with Kéroul and a Québec hotel association. As a first step, a jointly written letter was sent to managers who were association members, inviting them to be interviewed. Findings Some respondents showed an interest in accessibility, seen as a means of attracting group bookings; others confirmed that accessible rooms rented well to guests from all categories. Nonetheless, most were skeptical about the economic value of the disabled market. They were also poorly informed about this type of clientele, the concept of accessibility and the facilities “barrier-free” tourism requires. Originality/value Until now, the literature on accessible tourism has generally accentuated the needs of disabled consumers and analyzed their behavior with regard to tourism. Arguments to demonstrate the market potential of tourists with disabilities have ensued. The need to meet this demand was expressed while highlighting the low degree of consideration given to the disabled market by tourism professionals at present. However, few publications treat accessibility as a viable business opportunity. The study reveals the concerns and views of tourism industry professionals vis-à-vis accessibility and is all the more relevant, given the current context in Québec.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".