MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409595430 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127b-001

Application of Artificial Intelligence in Tourism Cultural Heritage and Its Impact on Cultural Cognition

2025· article· en· W4409595430 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Suping Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultural intelligenceCultural heritageTourismCognitionPsychologyGeographySocial psychologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicCultural Heritage Management and PreservationFrench-language works237,207