Bibliographic record
Abstract
The high arctic has been a tourism destination “in waiting”. Despite the increasing number of visitors to many Arctic destinations, Banks Island, the most westerly Island of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, has largely been ignored by tourists to date. In 1992, Aulavik National Park was created, and is co-managed by the Government of Canada, and the Inuvialuit. These residents of Banks Island amount to a mere 140 individuals today, and all live in the community of Sachs Harbour in the South West, whereas Aulavik National Park is in the North East of the island. In addition, the park is operating under policy guidelines which tend to work against the community benefiting from tourism to the park. This has presented some unique problems in appropriate and sensitive tourism development. This paper illustrates how an integrated approach to tourism planning was used to help protect a national park, while fostering community economic and social well-being. The approach used focuses on assisting communities and agencies to optimize the outcomes of tourism rather than mitigate against damage, and includes the role that local people may play in influencing appropriate tourism development.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".