MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7100072413

A framework for an industry supported destination marketing information system

2000· article· en· W7100072413 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismMarketing researchGovernment (linguistics)Information systemProcess (computing)Marketing strategyKey (lock)Quality (philosophy)Service (business)Digital marketing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article provides guidelines for the establishment of a comprehensive state/provincial destination marketing information system (DMIS). More specifically, it describes the process by which the tourism industry in Alberta, Canada developed a framework for the acquisition of timely research and intelligence to maintain and enhance its competitiveness as a travel destination. In keeping with a government mandate for greater public–private sector partnership, consideration was given to two equally important, but functionally distinct end users: (1) Travel Alberta, the province’s destination marketing organization, which uses information to guide strategic marketing priorities and create cooperative marketing opportunities for industry, and (2) local tourism operators, who demand information to improve their marketing decisions in service of individual business objectives. The needs of these key audience groups were identified and addressed using a comprehensive three-step approach: (1) Interviews were conducted with key industry players to identify research and intelligence needs, (2) information sources were sought to respond to the identified needs, and (3) solutions were identified to deliver high-quality information at an affordable cost. The end result of this process is a framework that can serve as a useful model for other jurisdictions seeking to develop a DMIS. While the Alberta framework will require ongoing evaluation to ensure its validity and accuracy, it possesses an important quality frequently lacking in this type of

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0070.008
Scholarly communication0.0200.015
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.365
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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research→French-language works237,207→