MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407562047 · doi:10.1080/13683500.2025.2466042

‘Made up’ and evolving – or already set in stone? Producing geotourism in the Niagara Region

2025· article· en· W4407562047 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Weaver

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Issues in Tourism · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeotourism and Geoheritage Conservation
Canadian institutionsNiagara College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotourismTourismSet (abstract data type)ArchaeologyGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What are the origins of niche tourism? The making of a form of niche tourism is explained by more than the economic forces of supply and demand and socio-demographic factors. An integrated web of classificatory practices, people, institutions, knowledge, experts, and place-based factors is involved. This web, derived from the ideas of philosopher Ian Hacking, constitutes a field of niche tourism production. Geotourism and geotourists appear as subjects of interest that become economically useful, thus inviting business-related interventions. Through the field of niche tourism production, geotourism in the Niagara Region becomes an analysable phenomenon; it is created and cultivated as opposed to being purely a consequence of economic forces and socio-demographic factors. The continued emergence of different forms of niche tourism warrants research that explores the origins of specific niches, including those currently taking shape. This paper proposes a conceptual framework that articulates previously unacknowledged dimensions of the creation of niche tourism. A range of practices and phenomena as well as human and institutional actors, as components of an interwoven field of production, play an underappreciated role constituting a form of niche tourism.

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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Issues in TourismSame topicGeotourism and Geoheritage ConservationFrench-language works237,207