MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005112258 · doi:10.2167/cit296.0

Tourism and Poverty Alleviation: An Integrative Research Framework

2007· article· en· W2005112258 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 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismPovertyEcotourismBusinessEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementEconomic growthGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The past decade has seen an upsurge of interest from the governments and development organisations in a tourism-based approach to poverty alleviation. More specifically, poverty alleviation has been established as a major priority within the United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) itself, as is evidenced by the launching of the concept of ST-EP (Sustainable Tourism as an effective tool for Eliminating Poverty). In contrast, the implications of tourism for poverty alleviation have been largely neglected by the tourism academic community. Relevant research to date is fragmented, limited in scope, and lacks a consistent methodological development. To address these deficiencies, this paper presents an integrative research framework, which synthesises multiple perspectives and can be used as an overarching guideline to stimulate and guide other future enquiries on tourism and poverty alleviation. Towards this end, a number of research needs and opportunities have also been identified and suggested along with the presentation of the framework.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score0.792

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.398 · 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