Tourism and 'Fracking' in Western Newfoundland: Interests and Anxieties of Coastal Communities and Companies in the Context of Sustainable Tourism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both tourism and oil production have some positive and negative socio-economic, cultural and environmental impacts on communities and economies. The coastal communities of Port au Port, Lark Harbour and Sally’s Cove in Western Newfoundland, Canada are very much conscious of these impacts. In recent months, the communities have been confronted with a major challenge to either resist or welcome oil companies to drill oil using a technique known as hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’. Obviously, the communities are more worried about the negative impacts that fracking, if introduced, could have on their living conditions and local economies. This paper explores and describes the growth of tourism in Western Newfoundland and the aforementioned three communities and discusses the potential impacts that fracking could have on the tourism industry. The main research finding is that the strong objection to fracking by the coastal communities is justified in the knowledge that sustainable tourism depends on efficient and environmentally-friendly management of both natural and cultural resources, and the fact that tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador has been growing steadily and the three coastal communities modestly epitomize this trend. There are also urgent needs for more scientific education and objective knowledge about fracking, especially the positive impact it could have on tourism and other sectors of Western Newfoundland’s economy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".