Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the authors of the lead-off article bring up some very valid points surrounding definitions that seem to be so much of the focus on tourism research, this author questions whether we are debating the right issues. First, this author questions what is the difference between sustainable tourism and ecologically sustainable development? This author believed that ecologically sustainable development was one of the pillars of sustainability: the balance of socio-cultural, environmental and economic factors for the long-term well being of contemporary and future generations? The authors of the lead-article asked much should sustainable tourism and sustainable development goals enter into the assessment of the future? This author believes the fundamental goals of the two are different? The question should not be how much but rather how? The issues that call for more sustainable forms of tourism and tourism development arose from the same concerns over general sustainable development over twenty years ago (Bramwell and Lane 1993; Eber 1992; Hall and Jenkins 1995). If the tourism industry is going to carry on into the future, then perhaps the question should be how to implement these goals more successfully rather than debating another definition which possibly outlines the same issue that the definition of sustainable tourism did originally? Since sustainable tourism development was first discussed, there has been an agreed-upon confusion about whose needs and what time frames should be considered (e.g., Butler 1993, 1998; Sharpley 2003). Today, however, there seems to be no debate that sustainable tourism is needed and the concepts of sustainable tourism are agreed upon: Protect and conserve resources Use a multi-stakeholder approach Be environmentally responsible Maintain the well-being and involvement of the local population or host community
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".