Impacts of Visitor Spending on the Local Economy: Joshua Tree National Park, 2004
Bibliographic record
Abstract
outside the local area not staying overnight within the local region, and 58 % are visitors staying overnight in the local area. About a quarter of visitors were campers and 21% stayed in area motels, hotels, cabins, or BB’s. The average visitor group spent $162 in the local area. Visitors reported expenditures of their group inside the park and in the surrounding communities (Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, and Twenty-nine Palms. On a party trip basis, average spending in 2004 was $54 for non-local day trips, $351 for visitors in motels, $200 for campers and $136 for other overnight visitors. On a per night basis, visitors staying in motels spent $216 in the local region compared to $86 for campers. The average per night lodging cost was $104 per night for visitors in motels and $11 for campers. Total visitor spending in 2004 within 50 miles of the park was $36 million including $4.8 million inside the park. Twenty-three percent of the total spending was for lodging, 18 % restaurant meals and bar expenses, and 15 % gas and oil.. Overnight visitors staying in motels accounted for 43 % of the spending, campers 22 % and non-local day trips 21%.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".