MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801404169 · doi:10.1108/tr-07-2017-0115

Video game–induced tourism: a new frontier for destination marketers

2018· article· en· W2801404169 on OpenAlexaff
Louis-Étienne Dubois, Chris Gibbs

Bibliographic record

VenueTourism Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismCreedDestinationsVideo gameAdvertisingFrontierMarketingOriginalityValue (mathematics)BusinessComputer scienceSociologyMultimediaPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This paper aims to expand the media-related tourism literature in a new domain of application by highlighting a connection between the world of video games and tourism. Design/methodology/approach Through deductive content analysis, this study looks at 137 online comments posted on popular gaming and travel websites that connect two popular video games (Assassin’s Creed II and Assassin’s Creed Unity) and travel motivation. Findings Results establish that video games share similar travel motivation elements with film and should be considered as a driver of tourism. It argues that destinations should consider video games as a platform for motivating tourists before they consider investing in virtual reality. It outlines opportunities for destinations interested in video game-induced tourism and calls for more research and case studies that link video games with destinations. Originality/value This is, to the authors’ knowledge, the first paper to investigate this connection. As such, it outlines untapped opportunities for destinations interested in video game-induced tourism and opens up a new line of research within media-related tourism literature.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations79
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTourism ReviewSame topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207