MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394727373 · doi:10.3390/tourhosp5020021

The Great Canadian (Electric) Road Trip: Evaluating EV Use in National Park Tourism

2024· article· en· W4394727373 on OpenAlexaffabout
Natalie Knowles, Daniel Scott, S. J. Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueTourism and Hospitality · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismNational parkGeographyRegional scienceTransport engineeringEnvironmental planningEngineeringArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of its 2050 net zero emission commitment, Canada has a mandate to transition to electric vehicles (EVs) to decarbonize transportation. While the EV charging infrastructure is expanding in urban areas, the infrastructure for inter-city and nature-based tourism has not been assessed. This study combined four metrics of feasibility and convenience into an EV readiness index to evaluate 94 road trip itineraries associated with Canada’s iconic national parks. Index scores ranged from not possible (0) to equal to the travel experience of internal combustion vehicle (20). With the summer range, the average one-day route score was 19.2, as 82% of one-day itineraries could be completed without requiring additional charging. Multi-day routes scored lower (14.0), with 24% being highly inconvenient or impossible due to gaps between charging stations. With a reduced winter EV range, average index scores for one- and multi-day trips declined as charging needs increased (18.4 and 13.2, respectively). Across the 94 travel routes, EVs were estimated to produce only 17% of the carbon dioxide emissions of internal combustion vehicles (this was much lower in some provinces). The findings also highlight key regional differences in tourism EV readiness and where infrastructure is needed to provide equitable access to Canada’s national parks for tourists seeking to decarbonize their holiday travel.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTourism and HospitalitySame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207