MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789624146 · doi:10.1080/19407963.2018.1443939

A motivation-based typology for natural event attendees

2018· article· en· W2789624146 on OpenAlexaffabout
Martinette Kruger, Melville Saayman, John S. Hull

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Policy Research in Tourism Leisure and Events · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWitnessWonderEvent (particle physics)Natural (archaeology)Market segmentationTypologyPhenomenonDestinationsMarketingNatural phenomenonAdvertisingPsychologySocial psychologyBusinessGeographyTourismPolitical scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little research has been undertaken on the push and pull motives of attendees who travel to witness the natural phenomenon of the Salute to the Sockeye Festival held in British Columbia, Canada, celebrating one of the largest salmon runs, a water-based natural event, in the world. While numerous studies have focused on the motives of visitors to other events as well as to nature-based destinations we identified the said motives of these attendees and segmented the markets according to their motives. The results confirmed that attendees to natural events have a variety of motives for their trip and that segmenting visitors based on their motivations is a useful market segmentation tool as it provides a definitive profile and understanding of different types of visitors and their viewing preferences. The findings furthermore challenge the results of existing research findings that tourists are motivated by the need to escape from their everyday environment. Rather, attendees travelling to witness natural events are motivated by the specialness of the event i.e. the natural phenomenon and their appreciation of it. The findings enabled us to provide strategic insights for marketing and managing the salmon run viewing experience and similar natural events, according to the preferences of specific market segments. These strategies may be used by event organisers to ensure repeat visits, a memorable viewing experience and a greater appreciation of the natural wonder.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.371 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Policy Research in Tourism Leisure and EventsSame topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207