MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2757367833 · doi:10.5539/jgg.v9n3p59

TREVPAR’s Rates Development, Average Income and OCC of Brazilian’s Resorts During 2014/2015 Two-Year-Time

2017· article· en· W2757367833 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Antonio Carlos Bonfato, Barbara Hansing, Erica Casarini Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geography and Geology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicBusiness and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCircumstantial evidenceLow incomeOccupancyDemographic economicsGeographyAgricultural economicsBusinessEconomicsEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article talks about the sales performance and income generation of Brazilian resorts based in enterprises associated with the Associação Brasileira de Resorts-ABR (Brazilian Association of Resorts -BAR) during 2014-2015. The article purpose understands how much the circumstantial factors interfere in rates generation in the hotel industry. The sales performance was measured by the occupancy rates related to the income through the TREVPAR’s average income meters. These resorts were analyzed, first, in a general group of performance and, later, were segmented and analyzed into subgroups according to their geographical location – country side or the beach - and the daily rate - all-inclusive or other kind of rates (half board, etc). After rates obtained, it was concluded that the circumstantial and sector factors has strong influence in the resorts income. In addition to the overall performance of sales indices, could be noted that when put into subgroups, the resorts had different performances along the tow-year-period.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.306 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geography and GeologySame topicBusiness and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207