MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395059542 · doi:10.32870/jbf.v2i1.25

Getting ready to work: adventure tourism guides’ eating and drinking behavior

2021· article· en· W4395059542 on OpenAlexaff
Martha Leticia García-Solano, Claudia Llanes Cañedo, Fátima Ezzahra Housni, Joe Pavelka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Behavior and Feeding · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAdventure Sports and Sensation Seeking
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
FundersNational Science and Technology CouncilConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsAdventureTourismWildernessMountaineeringWork (physics)RecreationPsychologyEnvironmental healthAdvertisingGeographyMedicineEngineeringPolitical scienceEcologyBusinessHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main challenge for adventure tourism guides’ is group management in wilderness environments. Eating studies of mountaineers have linked physiological changes to environmental conditions. Research on tourist guides described their role in tourism activities and on tourist-guide, employer-guide or guide-guide interactions. Although studies on food and mountaineers have addressed issues such as the influence of food intake on hikers’ bodies, guides’ strategies to prepare themselves to work have seen little research. This qualitative study used in-depth interviews with six male professional mountain guides, on drinking and eating behavior prior to ascent to the Volcán Nevado de Colima National Park. Results indicate mountain guides avoid fatty foods and alcoholic beverages and stay hydrated days prior to any expedition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Behavior and FeedingSame topicAdventure Sports and Sensation SeekingFrench-language works237,207