Sistema de indicadores para la gestión de un destino turístico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resulta imprescindible entender que la gestión de un destino turístico debe estar bajo el prisma de la sostenibilidad y que, para ello, los responsables o gestores deben contar con instrumentos que les permitan valorar el grado de sostenibilidad turística y les proporcionen la información necesaria para controlar, evaluar y reorientar, si fuera necesario, las políticas turísticas.En este trabajo se propone como instrumento de medición un Sistema de Indicadores, siendo prioridad en todo su desarrollo que resulte práctico, ágil y operativo, antes que desarrollar un modelo teórico ideal que finalmente sea inoperante. Este Sistema es testado por un panel de expertos y probado empíricamente en destinos de litoral maduros, donde el concepto de sostenibilidad alcanza su grado más complejo. Ambas revisiones resultaron satisfactorias, y permitieron mejorar el Sistema inicialmente planteado, con una exhaustiva revisión de los indicadores, incorporando nuevos, adaptando otros a la información existente, realizando cambios de formulación e incluso permitió valorar carencias de información, identificando aspectos relevantes para la gestión de un destino turístico para los que no se dispone de información. Finalmente se analiza el sistema en cuatro destinos andaluces (Benalmádena, Fuengirola, Marbella y Torremolinos) y se interpretan los resultados obtenidos.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".