MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W123177092 · doi:10.3406/karst.2006.2576

Phénomènes karstiques et tourisme dans les parcs nationaux de l'Ouest canadien : la mise en valeur progressive d'un patrimoine naturel

2006· article· en· W123177092 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stéphane Héritier

Bibliographic record

VenueKarstologia revue de karstologie et de spéléologie physique · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismLandformKarstGeographyNational parkNatural heritagePromotion (chess)CaveNatural (archaeology)Environmental protectionArchaeologyPolitical scienceCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The karst phenomenon and tourism in western canadian national parks : the progressive promotion of a natural heritage Canadian national parks located in the Rockies and in the Selkirk range (Alberta and British Columbia) can be considered as places of major interest to focus research on the Canadian parks. Since the beginning of the National Park System in 1885, transcontinental railway companies have promoted tourism activities within national parks based on scenery and natural sites. With more than 10 millions visitors per year, these parks have become a favorite tourist destination for many Canadian and Americans. Nature and different natural processes, such as falls, lakes, canyons and caves, karst springs, glacial processes and postglacial landforms, are thus considered as tourist resources [Sanguin & Gill, 1990]. The present paper analyzes how karst landscapes have become a significant part of the tourist dynamics within the Canadian national parks. These landforms and processes seem to be involved in a tourism process based on the promotion of the entire environment, its dynamics and its mechanisms. The final point will be to interrogate the way in which karst processes and landforms have become «subjects» that offer opportunities for tourism development through the terms and conditions of their promotion as a support for parks attractivity. A century of tourism development has enlarged the scientific opportunities for visitors, introducing the latter to the geomorphologic as well as the human heritage. Since the end of the 1960s, coordinated regional programs have been developed (tourism management, interpretation, etc.) between the mountain parks and the tourism sector (railway companies, private interpreters, businesses, etc.). The use and the promotion of karst has been gradually developed, especially for endokarstic and hydrokarstic forms and processes, like mountain scenery, karst lansdcapes have become a foundation for nature tourism. As parts of national parks, the hydrokarst and the canyons... are geomorphosites [Reynard & Panizza, 2005] which are protected for their ecological value. Nowadays, they are also preserved for their scientific and esthetic values but also because they are considered as significant parts of the tourism industry. Since the 1960s, scientific studies have incited actors to develop a global approach in environment management that converges on «ecological integrity», a major concept for Parks Canada. In the end, the differing values (aesthetic, cultural, economic, ecological, scientific) identified by Reynard [2005] converge in the concept of «heritage value», understood as the synthesis of the identified values for geomorphosites, based either on a mathematic evaluation or on a synthetic analysis. Regarding the history of karst sites promotion within the Canadian mountain parks, and the recent proposal concerning a restrictive karst policy [Horne, 2004-b], it seems the karst phenomenon has obtained a genuine economic, touristic and heritage status.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0160.024
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKarstologia revue de karstologie et de spéléologie physiqueSame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207