Does the tourist care? A comparison of tourists in Koh Phi Phi, Thailand and Gili Trawangan, Indonesia
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
Koh Phi Phi, Thailand, and Gili Trawangan, Indonesia, are two islands in Southeast Asia that face several developmental challenges associated with the rapid growth of tourism. Both islands are part of a marine park, are small in size and have several natural resources that need protection. They both face burgeoning tourist numbers that have increased tourism infrastructure development and are leading to environmental degradation. These islands have discussed ways to incorporate sustainability into their management and marketing practices, and they have looked to tourists as a support for change. This study examines the motivations, profiles and perceptions of tourists in island destinations, their level of awareness of environmental issues there, the extent to which they feel responsible about preserving or protecting their natural resources and the role they may be willing to take in their management, including their willingness to pay for environmental protection. The findings showed that the majority of the tourists to both islands were young, had relatively high levels of income and were from English-speaking nations. Tourists in both islands stated that they were willing to pay for sustainability practices, but there were differences around who they felt should be primarily responsible for implementing sustainability measures.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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