A Profile of Canadian Agritourists and the Benefits they Seek
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The family farm is being threatened by changes in agriculture and the globalization of our food system. In response, many farms have diversified into tourism. However, farm diversification into tourism is based more on a leap of faith than on solid market research. Using data drawn from the 2006 Canadian Travel Activities and Motivation Survey (TAMS), the current study identified five discrete rural tourism niche market groups, including agritourists (i.e., those whose primary trip purpose was to visit a farm), to determine if their demographic profiles and the benefits they sought were different. The results indicated that agritourists were not notably different from other rural tourism niche markets. The findings question the niche status of agritourism as a viable diversification strategy for struggling farm families. Hence, rather than perpetuating agritourism as a special and distinct niche market, future research should identify and explore appropriate strategies that might help farm families transition out of a predominately agrarian economy into service-based and experience-based economies. Keywords: agritourism, rural tourism, niche markets, benefits sought
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".