Evaluación de los modelos de pronóstico aplicados para la demanda turÃstica internacional hacia Colombia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En la actualidad, existen factores de orden financiero, cultural, social y medioambiental susceptibles de ser utilizados para explicar los flujos turAsticos internacionales desde y hacia un paAs. (Coshall, 2000: 218). No obstante, se analizan algunos factores econA³micos que pueden afectar los viajes o estancias de las personas.A partir de 1970 hasta 1977, el sector turAstico colombiano dependAa en un 50% en promedio del turismo procedente de Estados Unidos y de CanadAi. Entre 1978 y 1991, este turismo representA³ solamente en promedio el 32%, es decir que habAa disminuido en 18 puntos porcentuales, para dar cabida al turismo europeo (Italia, EspaA±a, Alemania y Francia) y de otros paAses de AmA©rica Latina. En un lapso de 21 aA±os el turismo internacional hacia Colombia pasA³ de 117 mil visitantes a 598 mil. El crecimiento de este turismo fue constante desde 1971 hasta el aA±o de 1977. ****** At the present time, factors of financial, cultural, social and environmental order exists susceptible to be used to explain the international tourist flows from and towards a country. (Coshall, 2000: 218). Despite, in this article some economic factors are analyzed that can affect the trips or stays of the people. As of 1970 until 1977, the Colombian tourist sector depended in a 50% in average of the tourism coming from the United States and Canada. Between 1978 and 1991, this tourism only represented in average 32%, is to say that it had diminished in 18 percentage points, to give capacity to the European tourism (Italy, Spain, Germany and France) and of other countries of Latin America. In a lapse of 21 years the international tourism towards Colombia happened more or less of 117 thousand visitors to 598 thousands. The growth of this tourism was constant from 1971 to the year of 1977.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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".