Web 2.0 et communautés de marque autour d'un produit touristique: le cas des Clubs Lookéa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ur les lèvres de nombreux managers depuis déjà plusieurs années, le Web 2.0 est souvent décrit comme un ensemble de technologies ayant permis au World Wide Web d'évoluer vers une plateforme d'échanges et de collaboration entre utilisateurs. L'émergence des médias dits « sociaux » tels que les blogs, les forums de discussion, les plateformes collaboratives ou les réseaux tels que Facebook ou Twitter constituent quelques uns des outils ayant fait de l'Internet un espace ouvert et participatif où chacun peut facilement contribuer au contenu diffusé sur la toile. Dans le cadre de ce chapitre, nous verrons comment ces évolutions ont influencé le milieu du tourisme, tant en ce qui concerne le comportement des consommateurs touristiques qu'en ce qui concerne les pratiques des professionnels du secteur.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".