MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6987085019

Satisfacción de los participantes en la competencia Birding Rally Challenge 2012 y 2013 en Tambopata y Machu Picchu sobre accesibilidad, seguridad y servicios turísticos

2014· dissertation· es· W6987085019 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePortal de Revistas PUCP (N/A) · 2014
Typedissertation
Languagees
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Quarter (Canadian coin)PopulationContext (archaeology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La presente investigación partió del interés por el segmento de observación de aves en el Perú, donde el Birding Rally Challenge se considera una de las primeras competencias de avistamiento de aves en el país, siendo el primer formato realizado en Latinoamérica. El estudio pretende identificar y conocer la satisfacción de los participantes sobre la accesibilidad, seguridad y servicios turísticos en la competencia Birding Rally Challenge realizadas en las ciudades de Puerto Maldonado (Madre de Dios) y Machu Picchu (Cusco) en los años 2012 y 2013. Ambas ediciones estuvieron organizadas por PROMPERU e ITA de Inkaterra. Debido a que la observación de aves en el país cobra mayor importancia, se está empezando a ofrecer a los turistas servicios turísticos óptimos, con una adecuada accesibilidad y brindar a estos la seguridad en los destinos predilectos para realizar este tipo de actividad; surge la necesidad de conocer cuál es la situación actual y las debilidades y/o fortalezas de los servicios brindados en la actividad que hasta el día de hoy no han sido analizados, con la finalidad de lograr más competencias de nivel internacional.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePortal de Revistas PUCP (N/A)Same topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207