MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287879567 · doi:10.1080/14724049.2022.2099409

Animatronic dolphins as the new authentic? posthuman reflections of ‘light’ tourism on the move

2022· article· en· W4287879567 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecotourism · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosthumanTourismEcotourismDark tourismAestheticsSociologyNature tourismEnvironmental ethicsGeographyArchitectural engineeringArtEngineeringArchaeologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marine parks have successfully positioned themselves as harbingers of ‘once in a lifetime’ experiences for visitors motivated to get close, embodied experiences with dolphins and other cetaceans. Captive animal venues have amplified these experiences by expanding their programs to include ‘fake’ encounters with robotic (animatronic) animals as well as conventional wild encounters. This study sought to investigate the choices of university students on the opportunity to experience either a live swim-with-dolphin tour or an animatronic tour, and if their choices remained stable or changed after an intervention. Results indicate that the intervention strategy significantly impacted students’ choices, inducing them to later choose the animatronic dolphin experience. The paper tests our conceptions about what is real and artificial in charting a path for the future of responsible and sustainable tourism.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.310 · 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