MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771326022 · doi:10.1177/1356766718757271

Collaborative approaches to government travel advisories in Australia between Australia’s travel industry leadership and the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2003–2017

2018· article· en· W2771326022 on OpenAlex
David Beirman

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal Of Vacation Marketing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismGovernment (linguistics)CharterContext (archaeology)Public relationsMarketingBusinessNegotiationStakeholderMinistry of Foreign AffairsPolitical sciencePublic administrationGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The October 2002 Bali bombing was a catalyst for the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) to radically alter its approach to the content and dissemination of Australian government travel advisories. Integral to DFAT’s post-Bali strategy was its decision to seek the collaborative support of the Australian outbound travel industry leadership to broaden dissemination of travel advisories to outbound Australian travellers. Although initial contacts between DFAT and the Australian travel industry leaders in early 2003 were contentious, subsequent negotiations resulted in the world’s first signed agreement between a foreign ministry and a national travel industry leadership in June 2003. The initial agreement, the Charter for Safe Travel involved the Australian travel industry’s commitment to disseminate DFAT travel advisories in exchange for a viable consultative role in their content. Australia’s collaborative model was adopted in the UK from 2004, in Canada from 2005 and New Zealand since 2016. Globally, consultation between national travel industry leaders and national foreign ministries is rare, despite the support of the United Nations World Tourism Organization, the World Travel and Tourism Council and the Pacific Asia Travel Association. Through participant observation research, in the context of collaboration and stakeholder theories, this article discusses the evolution of a consultative relationship between DFAT and the Australian outbound travel industry leadership and other relevant stakeholders between 2003 and 2017. The observations made in this study reveal that collaborative consultation has achieved positive changes to travel advisories which feature regionally specific, timely and comprehensible content. These qualitative enhancements have been complemented by enhanced dissemination of Australian government travel advisories. Australia’s Consular Consultative Group serves as a working model for similar collaboration, in the interests of global tourism safety.

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 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)0.002
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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.140 · 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