MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988730220 · doi:10.1080/04419057.2000.9674183

Community Participation in Rural Tourism Development

2000· article· en· W1988730220 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Leisure Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismCommunity developmentPlan (archaeology)Development planRural tourismPublic relationsRural communityProcess (computing)Community participationRural developmentRural community developmentBusinessPolitical scienceMarketingEconomic growthSociologyTourism geographyGeographySocioeconomicsEconomicsComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines rural tourism development at the community level. Research was undertaken in four rural communities in Ontario, Canada which identified outcomes and impacts of unplanned tourism development. The research indicated that critical problems arise as development increases. Frustration sets in after years of the community's inability to solve the issues. Members of the research communities identified the development of a tourism plan as the solution to these problems, however, this paper suggests that unless vital preplanning activities are established in the community, a plan may only produce increased frustration. The preplanning activity needs to focus on process issues including capacity building, trust and creating procedures for dialogue.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.326 · 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