Application of Artificial Intelligence in Tourism Cultural Heritage and Its Impact on Cultural Cognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The integration of artificial intelligence and tourism culture industry requires that it is consumercentered, and everything is based on the fundamental starting point of improving service quality and providing better tourism products.The article explores the impact of AI application on the cultural cognition level of tourists based on the role mechanism of AI and innovative inheritance methods in tourism culture inheritance.The level of tourists' cultural cognition is quantified through the degree of understanding of tourism culture, the willingness to accept and disseminate tourism culture, the degree of preference and internalization of tourism culture, and the willingness to practice tourism culture, and the relevant research data are obtained through questionnaires.Then the benchmark regression model was constructed by combining the multiple linear regression model with the level of cultural cognition of tourists and the level of AI application as the explanatory variables and core explanatory variables.For every 1 percentage point increase in the level of AI application in tourism cultural heritage, the level of cultural cognition of tourists will increase by 0.419 percentage points.The application of artificial intelligence in tourism culture inheritance can expand the way of tourism culture inheritance and enhance the cultural cognition level of tourists through intelligent transmittable knowledge base.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".