MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W264148223

Cascade Effect or Co-evolution within Tourism in the Niagara Region?

2014· article· en· W264148223 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patrick Brouder, Christopher Fullerton

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismTourism geographyEconomic geographyBusinessEcotourismProduct (mathematics)MarketingRegional scienceGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tourism is often galvanised around a central theme based on a region’s strengths in product supply and promotional opportunity, which usually results in an identifiable regional brand. However, this also hides the existing heterogeneous nature of tourism supply, especially in regions with an established brand. Securing long-term community economic development requires a broader focus since some unheralded tourism development paths may prove resilient over the long-term and ultimately contribute to community development. This paper investigates the less central stakeholders in the Niagara region of Canada and explores how future studies might integrate marginal tourism stakeholders in studies of the regional tourism economy. Through semi-structured interviews with regional tourism stakeholders, the analysis reveals a new perspective on tourism in the Niagara region by focussing on the place of marginal stakeholders in a region with a strong tourism brand. The region exhibits strong path dependence based on its industrial and agricultural legacy but long-term, organic, incremental processes of change within the region are creating new tourism development paths. These new paths co-evolve with the dominant tourism paths as well as other community development initiatives leading to positive change across the region.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of Hospitality and TourismSame topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207