MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121387548

Thailand's International Tourism Demand: Seasonal Panel Unit Roots and the Related Cointegration Model

2011· article· en· W3121387548 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Songsak Sriboonchitta, Peter Calkins, Chukiat Chaiboonsri, Jintanee Jintranun

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Economics and Finance · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCointegrationCurrencyTourismEconomicsPanel dataUnit rootUnit (ring theory)Exchange rateEconometricsMonetary economicsGeographyMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tourism is the main service sector in Thailand. It generated about 6.5% of national income (GDP) in 2009. 547 billion baht came from international tourists and 380 billion baht from domestic tourists in 2008. This study analyzes panel data by using the seasonal unit roots test. Firstly, we apply the CHEGY-IPS panel seasonal unit roots test developed by Otero (2007). Secondly, we develop a long run relationship model to estimate the number of international tourists to Thailand from 1997 to 2010 using the generalized method of moments (GMM).The results reveal panel seasonal unit roots in all model variables: GDP of the tourists' country of origin, competitive ratio of CPI between Thailand and country of origin, currency exchange rates, and transportation costs. The results from cointegration estimation by the GMM demonstrate that there is a positive relationship between GDP and the number of international tourist arrivals: a 1% increase of GDP leading to an increase of 1.5% of the number of international tourists. Regarding the exchange rate, a negative relationship is found: a 1% stronger Thai currency will lead to a decrease of 0.55% in the number of international tourists. Lastly, season has a significant effect upon the number of tourists. The number of tourists in January to March is higher than in other quarters.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Economics and FinanceSame topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207