MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392587513 · doi:10.3390/tourhosp5010013

Climate Change and the Future of Ski Tourism in Canada’s Western Mountains

2024· article· en· W4392587513 on OpenAlexaffabout
Natalie Knowles, Daniel Scott, Robert Steiger

Bibliographic record

VenueTourism and Hospitality · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeTourismGeographyTerrainCircumpolar starPhysical geographyEnvironmental protectionEconomyOceanographyArchaeologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Winter, snow, and mountains, epitomized by the world-renowned Rocky Mountain range, are an integral part of Canada’s sport-culture identity and international tourism brand, yet the climate change risk posed to this important ski tourism region remains uncertain. This study used the ski operations model SkiSim 2.0 to analyze the climate risk for the region’s ski industry (26 ski areas in the province of Alberta and 40 in British Columbia) with advanced snowmaking, including changes in key performance metrics of ski season length, snowmaking requirements, holiday operations, and lift and terrain capacity. If Paris Climate Agreement targets are met, average seasons across all ski areas decline 14–18% by mid-century, while required snowmaking increases 108–161%. Regional average operational terrain declined only 4–9% in mid-century, as the largest ski areas were generally more climate resilient. More pronounced impacts are projected under late-century, high-emission scenarios and in low latitudes and coastal British Columbia regions. When compared with continental and international ski tourism markets, Western Canada has relatively lower climate change impacts, which could improve its competitiveness. The results inform further research on demand-side as well as the winter sport-tourism industry and destination-scale climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.259 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTourism and HospitalitySame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207