MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of Terrorism and Travel Warning On Kenyan Tourism Demand

2018· article· en· W2806738038 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brian K. Masinde, Steven Buigut

Bibliographic record

VenueTourism Analysis · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrorismQuarter (Canadian coin)TourismKenyaWarning systemBusinessWarning signsAdvertisingGeographyPolitical scienceTransport engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Security concerns especially from terrorism events and travel warnings against the country presents a challenge to the tourism industry in Kenya. This study applies the Arellano-Bond difference GMM model to analyze the effects of terrorism and travel warning on demand for tourism in Kenya. Quarterly arrivals data from the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics from 22 source countries covering the period 2010q1 to 2015q4 are used. The study focuses on travel warnings by the UK and US. The results obtained show that terrorism events, represented by fatalities, significantly reduce tourism demand. The adverse effect lasts at least through to the following quarter. Travel warnings also show a negative effect on tourist arrivals in the country. However, the evolution of its effect over time seems to depend on which country issued the warning. For a UK warning, the bulk of the impact comes in the following quarter, while for a US travel warning the negative effect is mainly in the same quarter. The sector appears to recover more quickly from a US travel warning relative to a UK warning.

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)0.002
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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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