Effects of COVID-19 on Visitor Intentions to Attend Personal Interpretation Programs in the Provincial Parks of Alberta, Canada
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has examined COVID-19's impacts on parks, but little research has studied the pandemic's impact on in-person interpretation. Based on responses from 431 visitors to Alberta's provincial parks before and during the pandemic, this paper investigates how the pandemic affected visitor intentions to attend personal interpretation programs. Intentions to attend programs decreased after the pandemic started, but were greater for respondents who had attended programs the previous season. Key reasons for not attending programs were not to become infected and not to infect others. Intentions to attend programs were greater for males than females, and greater for respondents with an increased education and a larger household income. Despite pandemic concerns, 53% of respondents said that programs should be offered, with highest support for amphitheater shows, followed by guided hikes, point duties, and family events. Park managers should clearly communicate the benefits and safety measures employed for interpretation programs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it