Determining the Effect of Extreme Weather Events on Human Participation in Recreation and Tourism: A Case Study of the Toronto Zoo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study devises a novel approach for defining extreme weather events and assessing their effects on human participation in recreation and tourism, based on a case study of attendance at the Toronto Zoo (Toronto, ON, Canada). Daily zoo attendance data from 1999 to 2018 was obtained and analyzed in connection with daily weather data from local weather stations for the maximum temperature, minimum temperature, total precipitation, and maximum wind speed. The “climatic distance” method, used for evaluating representative weather stations for case studies in applied climatology, was employed to rank and select surrounding weather stations that most accurately captured daily weather observations recorded at the Toronto Zoo from 1990 to 1992. Extreme weather events can be defined as lying in the outermost (most unusual) 10 percent of a place’s history. Using this definition as the foundation, a percentile approach was developed to identify and assess the effects of extreme weather events across the following thresholds: the 99th percentile, the 95th percentile, and the 90th percentile, as well as less than the 1st percentile, less than the 5th percentile, and less than the 10th percentile. Additionally, revealed, theoretical, and binary thresholds were also assessed to verify their merit and determine their effects, and were compared to the extreme weather events defined by the percentiles approach. Overall, extreme daily weather events had statistically significant negative effects on zoo attendance in Toronto, apart from a few cases, such as the positive effect of usually warm daytime temperatures in the winter and usually cool nighttime temperatures in the summer. The most influential weather event across all seasons was extremely hot temperatures, which has important implications for climate change impact assessments.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".