MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2005556384 · doi:10.2495/st080161

Tourism in the rust belt: using the past as an economic development strategy

2008· article· en· W2005556384 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jillian Eyles

Bibliographic record

VenueWIT transactions on ecology and the environment · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismDowntownSustainabilityBusinessPoliticsLandscapingSustainable developmentFutures contractEconomic base analysisAsset (computer security)Consumption (sociology)Environmental planningEconomyEconomic growthFinanceGeographyEconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tourism is seen as a major strategy for urban renewal in many cities in North America, particularly in those places in which there has been significant industrial downsizing.Changing leisure patterns in such cities have exacerbated the problem of the downtown core.Not only have many aspects of the culture of consumption fled the downtown but also so have many office and warehousing functions.Faced with these problems -but with an outgoing commitment for the viability and sustainability of the core -many cities have made significant investments in landscaping, policing and financial instruments.However, many of the rust belt cities have not been revived.Using case studies from the American mid-west and southern Ontario, the possibilities of sustainable urban futures through tourist investments will be assessed.The asset base as well as the financial and political climate will be seen as key.It may be concluded that except for a few places, sustainable success will be illusory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWIT transactions on ecology and the environment→Same topicUrban Green Space and Health→French-language works237,207→