MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014696208 · doi:10.2167/jost587.0

Sustainable Wine Tourism: The Host Community Perspective

2006· article· en· W2014696208 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

VenueJournal of Sustainable Tourism · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWine Industry and Tourism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWineTourismSustainable tourismBusinessStakeholderSustainable developmentMarketingPerspective (graphical)Community developmentEcotourismEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementPolitical sciencePublic relationsGeographyEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The meaning and elements of sustainable wine tourism from the community perspective are explored. A case study method involving multi-stakeholder input was employed to identify issues specific to the Town of Oliver, British Columbia, which is the self-proclaimed ‘Wine Capital of Canada’. The case illustrates challenges facing a town that is aggressively pursuing wine tourism development, but it must deal with serious implications for agriculture, the natural environment, and the community. Recommendations made for Oliver, both strategies and implementation methods, provide a useful starting point for other communities engaged in wine tourism development. More general implications are drawn on the application of the life cycle concept to wine tourism, and specific research recommendations are made.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
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 score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.213 · 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