MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7019449295

A global review of 50 years of polar tourism scholarship

2024· other· en· W7019449295 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln University Research Archive (Lincoln University) · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipTourismPolarPresentation (obstetrics)Phase (matter)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first peer-reviewed journal article on polar tourism was published in French by Canada-based Louis-Edmond Hamelin in 1974, marking 2024 as the 50th anniversary of polar tourism scholarship. This presentation discusses the results obtained from a meta-review of journal articles (n=626) searched in 22 different languages and tracks the development of polar tourism scholarship over time (1974-2022). The meta-review employed a keyword search of two online scholarly databases (Scopus and Google Scholar) and other regionally relevant searches. We identified four main phases of polar tourism scholarship. The early days of research (1974- 1991) represented an ‘exploratory’ phase, with an average number of less than one publication annually. This initial period was followed by an ‘establishment’ phase (1992–2006), during which the average number of publications per year increased to nine. A ‘development’ phase (2007-2016) followed, in which polar tourism scholarship grew substantially and solidified at about 19 publications annually on average. The final phase (starting in 2017), labelled the ‘integration’ phase, witnessed the average yearly number of publications to be generally more than twice that of those during the development phase and were dominated by multi-authored and multi-disciplinary scholarship. Also, this recent phase is the most linguistically diverse, with 10 publication languages represented, although articles in English continue to dominate the polar tourism literature (almost 75%). This is a finding not well-explored in previous meta-reviews, and it represents a growing scholarly interest across national boundaries and beyond those states typically associated with polar tourism. The incorporation of articles published in languages other than English allows us to present for the first time a comprehensive and global overview of scholarly output on polar tourism. This linguistic diversity is critical to understanding polar tourism as its growth intensifies and diversifies.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.005

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.277 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln University Research Archive (Lincoln University)French-language works237,207