Exploring the relationship between aboriginal tourism and community development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aboriginal communities are increasingly turning toward aboriginal tourism development to diversify their economic base, validate their claims related to proprietary rights over traditional lands and re-connect youth with elders and the community to their land and their culture. Oftentimes, these development initiatives are tied to broader community development goals, yet the success of the tourism project is generally measured by its market readiness, revenue generation and job creation. The purpose of this article is to provide insight into the breadth of aboriginal community development benefits from tourism development through a review of literature of selected international case studies on aboriginal tourism development. Framing our approach is Bell's typology of aboriginal community development that is conceptualized as consisting of five dimensions that include community empowerment, community wellness, community economic development, community learning and community stewardship [Bell, M. (1999 Bell, M. (1999a). The changing face of community development in the north: From the power paradigm to the spirit paradigm. Yellowknife, NWT: Inukshuk Management Consultants http://www.inukshukmanagement.ca/Community%20Development%20Essay%2099.pdf (http://www.inukshukmanagement.ca/Community%20Development%20Essay%2099.pdf) (Accessed: September 2009). [Google Scholar]). The changing face of community development in the north: From the power paradigm to the spirit paradigm. Yellowknife, NWT: Inukshuk Management Consultants]. The analysis provided insight into how aboriginal tourism initiatives benefit broader community development dimensions beyond the economic and that to develop tourism that extends its benefits to the community, issues that relate to community empowerment, wellness and healing and stewardship should be addressed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".