Research on Global Exhibition Industry Management Models and Their Implications for China's Regional Exhibition Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The exhibition industry, as an integral part of the modern service sector, functions as a catalyst for regional economic development and is one of the key indicators of a region's openness and developmental potential. With over 170 years of growth, international exhibition industry management models have matured significantly. Developed countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and Canada have gradually established four predominant development models: government-led, market-led, association-led, and a hybrid of government and market. These models hold a dominant position in the global development of the exhibition industry. The pace and level of development of the exhibition industry largely depend on the chosen management model. An appropriate industry management model can foster rapid development of the exhibition industry, whereas an unsuitable one can hinder progress. Under the new circumstances, China insists on implementing more extensive, broader, and deeper opening-up policies, accelerating the internationalization of the exhibition industry and gradually forming five major regional clusters: the Yangtze River Delta, the Pearl River Delta, the Bohai Rim, the Northeast, and the Midwest. In this context, analyzing international exhibition industry management models is of significant importance for improving China's exhibition industry management and promoting high-quality development of regional exhibition industries in China.
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 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 | 0.014 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".