Using the Social Economy in Tourism: A Study of National Park Creation and Community Development in the Northwest Territories, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary concern of social-economy organizations is the social and economic well-being of individuals in the communities where they work. However, social, economic, and environmental considerations also play a role in the wider community or regional spheres of development. In the Canadian North, local and regional development strategies are linked in many places to a growing number of large-scale conservation efforts, such as parks and protected areas, that can have important positive and negative roles. As a result of their social and economic interests, social-economy organizations might become involved in these community development strategies linked to conservation. This paper explores such involvement by outlining a collaborative community research project undertaken in ?utsel K’e, Northwest Territories, the gateway community to a proposed national park. The research is based on a series of interviews with community members and external parties with particular development responsibilities. The paper explores the ways in which social-economy organizations might facilitate rural community tourism development related to the creation of the park. The paper also considers several activities and approaches that could enhance the support provided by social-economy organizations for local tourism development relating to conservation in this community. Keywords: social economy, community tourism development, social and economic development, ?utsel K’e, national park, northern Canada
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".