Comunidad - municipio - universidad. Propuesta de desarrollo turístico. Estudio de caso: Municipio de Monte Hermoso
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El municipio de Monte Hermoso, localizado en el sudeste de la Provincia de Buenos Aires presenta una fuerte dependencia economica de la actividad turistica, marcada por una alta estacionalidad estival. Como respuesta a esta situacion, el municipio y la comunidad local habran de disenar nuevas acciones y politicas que contribuyan a la diversificacion de la economia y creacion de nuevos sectores productivos o de servicios compatibles con la actividad turistica. Un municipio, que tiene como principal actividad economica al turismo, encuentra en un plan de desarrollo local, un instrumento al servicio de la comunidad y la posibilidad de formular y adoptar politicas y estrategias consensuadas para dinamizar, optimizar y convertir en competitivo el destino turistico. En tal contexto, se aspira elaborar un plan de desarrollo turistico participativo en el marco de un turismo sustentable, para posicionar a Monte Hermoso como un destino pluriestacional. Se plantea un plan de trabajo dividido en tres etapas: analisis, diagnostico participativo y elaboracion de lineas estrategicas de desarrollo. El presente articulo hace referencia a la primera de las etapas.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".