Residents’ Attitudes Towards Tourism Development in AL-Salt City, Jordan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the attitudes of the local community in regards to tourism development in the city of Al-Salt, located 15 kilometers northwest of Jordan’s capital, Amman. Five focus group interviews were conducted with 56 participants from the local community. Using qualitative analysis of the data, a model of resident’s attitudes has emerged. The models explain how the residents do shape their attitudes towards tourism development programs. This paper argues that the local community is neither fully aware nor involved in the tourism projects that are being implemented in their city. Although they might have some concerns about tourism practices they support tourism development in their city. The study provides suggestions for the Jordanian tourism decision-making sector to improve awareness and increase further participation of the locals in the tourism projects in their city. Key words: Tourism; Marketing; Culture; Residents’ Attitudes; Tourism Development; The Middle East Resume Cet article etudie les attitudes de la communaute locale en ce qui concerne le developpement du tourisme dans la ville de Al-Salt, situee a 15 kilometres au nord-ouest de la capitale de la Jordanie, Amman. Cinq entretiens de groupe de discussion ont ete menees avec 56 participants de la communaute locale. En utilisant l'analyse qualitative des donnees, un modele d'attitudes residents a emerge. Le modele explique comment les residents ne faconner leurs attitudes a l'egard des programmes de developpement du tourisme. Cet article soutient que la communaute locale n'est ni pleinement conscient, ni implique dans les projets touristiques qui sont mises en oeuvre dans leur ville. Bien qu'ils puissent avoir des preoccupations au sujet des pratiques de tourisme qu'ils soutiennent le developpement du tourisme dans leur ville. L'etude fournit des suggestions pour le tourisme jordanien prise de decision du secteur afin d'ameliorer la sensibilisation et rehausser davantage la participation des habitants dans les projets de tourisme dans leur ville. Mots-cles: Tourisme; Du marketing; De la culture; Les attitudes des residents; Le developpement du tourisme; et Le Moyen-Orient
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".