Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study is to present the tourist plans of the inhabitants of Polish cities during the COVID-19 pandemic. A survey technique was used in the research with a questionnaire being disseminated for Facebook´s tourist thematic groups. Those recruited provided their friends with a link to the questionnaire via social media. Thus a snowball method was used and 402 respondents were obtained. Less than a quarter declared they did not want to go on a tourist trip in 2020 and the main reason was the prevailing pandemic and fear of coronavirus infection. However, the vast majority of respondents planned at least one tourist trip but a significant part abandoned any intention of travelling abroad for a holiday. The respondents mainly declared their willingness to stay in hotels and holiday resorts but assessed these facilities as the least safe in terms of epidemiology. The prevailing pandemic has been a source of much concern but the respondents were also worried about increased prices. Accommodation facilities were expected to undergo some form of disinfection along with the need to comply with social distancing restrictions and the wearing of masks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.021 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.282 | 0.114 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".