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
Abstract Rural tourism has been a subject of study since the early days of tourism scholarship. Most of tourism's deleterious impacts were identified from studies conducted in rural settings. It is only recently, however, that rural tourism has become a special focus of study, dissimilar enough from urban tourism, to be a study subject unto itself. This paper reviews some of the history of rural tourism development in North America with most of the attention paid to the USA's experience, with some examples from Canada. The reason for this is the huge economic difference between the two countries with respect to tourism flows and impacts. In reviewing the history of rural development in the USA, the argument is made that most developments are unplanned and result from market and economic forces that have greatly transformed the American rural landscape. A review of these transformational forces is provided. It is also shown that rural destinations are used, primarily, by local tourists and do not, with few exceptions, cater to an international clientele. After the historical perspective is presented an argument is made that current rural tourism development practices rely on an old paradigm, which is to use local attributes as the primary basis for development and marketing strategies. This has led, in recent years, to a great deal of development attention being paid to the cultural/heritage attributes of a place. Using research conducted in the state of Minnesota on highway travellers and tourists to rural destinations, a new way to look at actual and potential visitors is offered. Instead of an attribute‐specific development approach, a benefits‐based model is suggested as a different way to position rural tourism destinations. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 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