MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7112326963

Educational outcomes of commercial grizzly bear viewing participants : a case study from Port Hardy, British Columbia, Canada

2025· other· en· W7112326963 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSkemman · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Port (circuit theory)TourismPerceptionService (business)Interpretation (philosophy)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commercial bear-viewing is a growing tourism attraction across North America, predominantly in Alaska, USA and British Columbia, Canada. Commercial bear-viewing can be understood as the phenomena of individuals, typically tourists or visitors paying a commercial operator for a guided, bear-viewing service including transportation, interpretation, and safety management. This study aimed to evaluate the learning outcomes and overall effectiveness of guided interpretation in commercially guided bear-viewing tours based from the town of Port Hardy, British Columbia, Canada. This study used a paired survey methodology to examine any changes in commercial bear-viewing participants correct, objective knowledge of responsible bear-viewing practices and their perceptions of the commercial bear-viewing industry before and after participating in a commercial bear-viewing tour. The results demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in participants correct, objective knowledge, as well as a statistically significant shift in respondents’ perceptions of the industry evidenced by both descriptive and inferential statistics. While there remains ample opportunity for further research, this study highlights the efficacy of interpretation, education, and knowledge in the context of commercial bear-viewing and improving both guest and bear safety.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSkemmanFrench-language works237,207