MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405550725 · doi:10.24158/pep.2024.12.13

Ice and Snow Tourism: Concept, Development Factors and Practical Examples

2024· article· en· W4405550725 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Darima G. Budaeva, Zinaida Sergeevna Eremko, Alyona М. Andreeva, Sayana B. Dymbrylova

Bibliographic record

VenueОбщество политика экономика право · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAdventure Sports and Sensation Seeking
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismSnowRecreationChinaGeographyPhysical geographyEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceMeteorologyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article substantiates the emergence of the term “ice and snow tourism” in both scientific and practical discourse, reflecting the process of expanding recreational activities during the winter season and the emergence of new types of tourist attractions and services based on the use of the natural resources of snow and ice. The key factors influencing the development of ice and snow tourism are examined, and various subtypes are delineated, encompassing a range of recreational activities associated with snow and ice. Moreover, the article presents the experiences of China, Mongolia, and Canada in developing winter tourism geared towards ice and snow activities. Based on the results of content analysis, significant Russian regions that play a vital role in the progression of winter tourism focused on ice and snow events are identified. Additionally, the main directions for the development of this form of tourism are outlined. The study relies on scientific publications, strategic and programmatic documents, specialized websites, blogs, social media platforms, as well as artificial intelligence-based chatbots such as Perplexity AI.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueОбщество политика экономика правоSame topicAdventure Sports and Sensation SeekingFrench-language works237,207