When watching replaces hunting: An analysis of customer participation and satisfaction with cetacean-watching in the Azores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although cetaceans, especially whales, were hunted in the Azores until the end of the third quarter of the twentieth century, this practice was forbidden (mainly for reasons of species conservation). As a sustainable alternative, cetacean-watching today plays a vital role within the touristic sector in the Azores. This study examines the role of visitors' demographic characteristics in participation and in satisfaction with cetacean-watching activities in this archipelago. The results indicate significant differences in participation by nationality, likely due to cultural differences. Furthermore, first-time visitors are more likely to participate than repeaters. Gender, education, and age do not have any effect on participation. However, satisfaction is related to nationality, education, and gender. We also find some evidence that overlooking sample selection issues may lead to distorted conclusions regarding the assessment of the level of satisfaction. The results may be important in assisting management and policy makers to increase specific groups' participation and satisfaction. Both elements will contribute to the profitability of this industry as an alternative to hunting .
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".