MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100050477

120 Perceptions of ISO 9004 Quality Service Management Standards for Visitor Services: What Do Parks Canada Employees Really Think?

2016· article· en· W7100050477 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicKarl Barth and Christian Theology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisitor patternQuality (philosophy)Quality policyService qualityControl (management)Service (business)National park
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under the new Parks Canada Agency, visitor numbers, expenditures and satisfaction play an enhanced role in determining operating budgets for the entire system and for individual sites. As such, service quality has become an important theme in Parks Canada operating guidelines, and the agency-visitor relationship is often seen as the key to evaluating service quality performance. Although much research has explored visitors ’ perceptions of service quality, little has been done to understand quality control from the agency’s perspective. One option for an agency’s quality control is to implement a management standards program into its operating system. This study examined staff perceptions of issues associated with potential implementation of the ISO 9004 quality management standards into Canada’s National Parks and National Historic Sites. ISO 9004 are generic guidelines for quality management and are adaptable to both the public and private sectors. Interviews were conducted at Point Pelee National Park and Woodside National Historic Site. Because the involvement and commitment of the entire organization is instrumental to implementation, participants were selected from several levels of the agency. Staff identified benefits and challenges of implementation and often viewed the challenges they identified as opportunities for organizational growth. Staff also demonstrated an overall positive attitude and willingness to change, if adequate 220

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0080.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicKarl Barth and Christian TheologyFrench-language works237,207