Codes of ethics for travellers are not motivating
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
Purpose This paper aims to contribute to the discussion about the adequacy/inadequacy of codes of ethics in motivating tourist behaviour. Design/methodology/approach This paper is a philosophical argument for the use of virtue ethics, rather than rights-based codes of ethics, when directing the ethical behaviour of individual travellers. Findings Codes of ethics suffer from several problems, including inconsistency, unenforceability and a reliance on the guest/host distinction that may not be applicable. Rights-based codes of ethics use the language of rules and regulation, while virtue ethics relies on the moral autonomy of individuals. The language of virtue ethics, which promotes the development of individual character, would be more effective for inspiring ethical behaviour in individual tourists because they will identify with internal goals connected to their own goals and purposes, rather than with external rules. Practical implications The language of virtue ethics would have more motivating force and, thus, might be more appropriate for the task. Originality/value This paper presents an argument for the replacement of codes of ethics with a virtue ethic approach.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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