Research on China’s Inbound Tourism: A Comparative Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the current status of research on inbound tourism to China, which ranks third globally among tourist receiving countries. The importance of inbound tourism as an indicator of national tourism competitiveness and the current slow growth of inbound tourism in China make this review timely. A bibliometric approach is used. Articles published with CSSCI (Chinese Social Science Indexed) journals and international studies published in English-language journals were identified. Analysis of over 700 domestic articles about inbound tourism indicates that the studies concentrate on macro issues, in particular the spatial and temporal distribution of the inbound tourists and their economic impacts. Few studies on Chinese inbound tourism have been published in English language journals. The most popular theme is tourists’ behaviors. A comparison between publications in two languages is made and implications are offered in the context of the Chinese government’s policies on inbound tourism and the current status of research.
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.
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 | 0.086 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
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 it