MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200802405 · doi:10.35248/2167-0269.21.s4.004

Sustainable Ecotourism and Airship Travel

2021· article· en· W3200802405 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

VenueJournal of Tourism & Hospitality · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace Engineering and Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcotourismWildlifeTourismBusinessTerrainEnvironmental resource managementSustainable tourismEnvironmental planningGeographyEcologyEnvironmental scienceCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ecotourism is a global growth industry and Canada is well-positioned to attract more tourists for these types of activities. However, remote locations are under-served with respect to access and inherently vulnerable. This presents significant difficulties for tourists who want to see Canada’s wildlife in their natural habitats. In addition, the use of transport to get close to wildlife for viewing opportunities can be stressful for the animals and may damage terrain. This article explores the use of passenger airships for ecotourism. Airships have been used a number of locations for tourism-related activities. Modern designs with electric propulsion make airships ideal for intrusive ecotourism operations.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.180 · 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