La Calidad del Servicio que ofrece Cuba al Turismo Canadiense / The Quality of Service offered by Cuba to Canadian Tourism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Se valora el comportamiento del turismo canadiense, su crecimiento de 1994 hasta 2015 y su decrecimiento desde 2016, en contraste con el crecimiento de otros mercados emisores y del turismo canadiense hacia Mexico y Republica Dominicana. Se analizan los motivos de esta tendencia. Se formulan elementos que contribuyen a trazar estrategias para que el sistema turistico cubano pueda conservar su dinamica al crecimiento. Se enfatiza la necesidad de elevar la calidad del servicio que se ofrece al turista canadiense para lograr su satisfaccion, asi como la urgencia de continuar estimulando este mercado historico y que Cuba tiene potencialidades para recuperarlo. / The behavior of Canadian tourism, its growth from 1994 to 2015 and its decrease since 2016 is valued, in contrast to the growth of other markets and Canadian tourism to Mexico and the Dominican Republic. The reasons for this trend are analyzed. Elements are formulated that help to draw up strategies so that the Cuban tourist system can keep its growth dynamic. The need to raise the quality of the service offered to Canadian tourists to achieve their satisfaction is emphasized, as well as the urgency to continue stimulating this historic market and that Cuba has the potential to recover it.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".