Global–local relationships and governance issues at the Great Wall World Heritage Site, China
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
Heritage preservation and tourism use are inevitably intertwined at heritage sites and are characterized by both symbioses and tensions, particularly at World Heritage Sites, where international initiatives interact with local priorities. The international designation impacts heritage preservation, tourism development and community well-being at the local level, especially in developing countries. This paper examines global–local relationships, as well as involvement and governance at intermediate scales, and their implications for preservation and development at Badaling Great Wall World Heritage Site in Beijing, China, through examinations of its management structure, heritage preservation and development plans, and the opinions of the local business community. Interviews were conducted with key officials of the Management Office and questionnaire surveys were distributed with local business operators. It is shown that multiple stakeholders operate in a hierarchical, multi-departmental management structure. International linkages are weak and via central government. Positive economic impacts from tourism are highly valued. High awareness of heritage preservation and positive attitudes toward tourism are identified among local business operators with relatively high tolerance for negative environmental impacts. Potential conflicts between global priorities by World Heritage designation and local needs for tourism development are illustrated. Practical implications for heritage and tourism planning and management are discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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