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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community-based Ecotourism (CBET) holds great promise in promoting environmental conservation, local livelihood, and cultural preservation. However, without a clear understanding of the differential benefits and costs of CBET for men and women, ‘gender unaware’ CBET research, policies and projects may in fact promote the welfare of men over women. That is, without a consideration of factors such as (a) the gender division of labour, (b) gender relations, and (c) differential access to and control over environmental, livelihood and cultural resources, CBET projects may unwittingly exacerbate existing gender inequalities in local communities. As a result, CBET projects may fail to meet their fundamental environmental, livelihood and cultural aims. Following a brief discussion of CBET, this paper provides a rationale for gender analysis in ecotourism, outlines the historical evolution of gender and development work, and introduces standard frameworks and tools of gender analysis. Using extant empirical case studies of CBET, the paper then discusses how both ‘efficiency’ (Women in Development) and ‘empowerment’ (Gender and Development) tools of gender analysis might be applied in the research and practice of Community-based Ecotourism.
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it