MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000902184 · doi:10.1080/13683500903440689

Defining culturally sensitive ecotourism: a Delphi consensus

2010· article· en· W2000902184 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Issues in Tourism · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcotourismSustainabilityDelphi methodTourismDelphiBusinessPraxisSustainable tourismEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementOrder (exchange)Sustainable developmentMarketingPolitical scienceGeographyEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since sustainable development was introduced, culture has been submersed by more pressing tourism priorities such as the economy and the environment. To avoid putting at risk the resources upon which ecotourism depends and the desired sustainable outcomes it purports to deliver, research and praxis must be equally sensitive to all the pillars of sustainability – social, cultural, economical, and environmental. As a first step, this study employs the Delphi technique in order to assess the import of culture for ecotourism, to develop a definition for culturally sensitive ecotourism, and to identify the barriers and opportunities associated with its implementation. Over 100 ecotourism experts from 39 countries were consulted over a six month period.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.383 · 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