MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220908257 · doi:10.1079/tourism.2022.0018

Successful Winter Tourism Destinations

2022· article· en· W4220908257 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amanda J. Johnson, Christine M. Van Winkle

Bibliographic record

VenueTourism Cases · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismVisitor patternDestinationsResource (disambiguation)ExcellenceRecreationGeographyClimate changeEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceAdvertisingEnvironmental planningMarketingBusinessEcologyComputer scienceEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Climate, whether warm and sunny or cold and snowy, can complement tourism by providing favourable conditions for visitors and their desired activities. As a result, climate is often a main resource upon which tourism destinations depend. Extreme or unpredictable weather may be viewed as unfavourable for attracting visitors. However, even seemingly inclement climate conditions can be used as a resource in tourism. Existing research does not demonstrate how outwardly negative climate conditions might influence destination image, destination selection, and local tourism development. This case study examines how cold climates present both a challenge and an opportunity to developing and promoting an area for tourism. Here we outline how The Forks National Historic Site, located in Winnipeg, Manitoba and a popular summer destination was successfully re-framed as a cold-weather attraction. This case study represents a specific instance of how a tourism destination may highlight a unique feature, such as a frozen river. Readers will understand how harsh weather can become an uncommon resource that facilitates tourism and recreation and enhances overall visitor experience. As such, this case study presents a specific example of how various stakeholders came together to offer a unique experience and transformed an otherwise negative climate condition into a positive and desirable aspect of the destination. VIU logo WLCE logo Information Vancouver Island University World Leisure Centre of Excellence © A.J. Johnson and C. Van Winkle, 2015

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.303 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTourism CasesSame topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207