Cross-border Shopping Tourism: A Switzerland-Germany Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Border issues continue to be of interest in tourism literature, most significantly that which focusses on cross-border shopping (e.g., currency values, taxation, security). Borders as destinations are recognized in this area but the notion of shopping as a destination is perhaps less acknowledged. Following a review of the relevant literature, including the presentation of a table summarizing key areas of cross-border tourism research around the world, this paper presents a unique example of a border region with two-way traffic for cross-border shopping tourism: the border between Germany and Switzerland. The particular case is where two cities meet at the border: Konstanz, Germany and Kreuzlingen, Switzerland. An intercept survey and key informant interviews were conducted in both communities in the spring of 2015. The results indicate high levels of traffic for various products and services. And while residents are generally satisfied with cross-border shopping in their communities, there are emerging issues related to volume and, in particular, too many in Konstanz and not enough in Kreuzlingen. The paper concludes with a discussion that includes the development of a model cross-border shopping tourism that recognizes the multiple layers in space and destination. The paper concludes with a proposal to further investigate the particular issues related to the volume on both sides of borders where cross-border shopping is the destination.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".