MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994897738 · doi:10.4225/03/5934ddf517a40

Quality in australian tourism education: educator and professional views

2017· article· en· W2994897738 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHospitality and Tourism Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismHospitalityPublic relationsPerceptionQuality (philosophy)Hospitality management studiesProfessional developmentMarketingMedical educationHigher educationQuarter (Canadian coin)BusinessPsychologyPedagogySociologyPolitical scienceMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Partnerships between educators and industry professionals can facilitate students' tourism career opportunities. Considering this, a mail-out questionnaire was undertaken to assess the attitudes and perceptions of tourism educators (n=56) and tourism professionals (n=100) on tourism education issues. Results indicated that one-quarter of professionals believe university tourism majors provide graduates with a competitive advantage and both groups consider tourism/ hospitality, marketing and management as important business majors. Competencies in logical thinking, social interaction, tourism knowledge and concepts, and generic skills are also considered important by both groups with specific workplace competencies and professional experience considered relatively less important by educators (p

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.001

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.276 · 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