Marketing of Kitselas Canyon National Historic Park: an emerging tourist destination in northern British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The encouragement of Aboriginal Cultural tourism products in Canada has expanded the scope of tourism products and is anticipated to contribute to the economic development plans of First Nations'. Existing literature suggests that marketing is lacking for current and future aboriginal cultural tourism products and services, specifically related to industry growth. This paper examines the development of the Kitselas Canyon National Historic Site (KCNHS), an emerging aboriginal cultural tourism destination near Terrace, British Columbia. The project will determine to what extent the Kitselas Band follows best practices regarding marketing by examining the current marketing of the Kitselas Canyon site, and compare this overview with best practices theory, existing literature, and statistics to determine if any marketing improvements may be suggested to be incorporated to the next phase of development. Marketing standards used in this report include the 4Ps of the marketing mix with the addition of service. Price, product, placement, and promotion and level of services on-site include the cultural knowledge and hospitality training of staff, activities, and safety. The recommendations are based on each segment of the marketing mix specific to the Kitselas Canyon National Historic Site. In the process of this examination, this report will also gauge the depth and scope of current marketing research regarding aboriginal cultural tourism. The secondary question addressed is if there is enough current literature and statistics for aboriginal cultural tourism operator's use to support marketing decisions, and industry growth.--P.ii.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".