IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE DEFINITIONS OF ECOTOURISTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecotourists have become popular subjects for research. However, a lack of agreement on the defini-tion of ecotourists continues to challenge progress in research on this group. Different authors fre-quently use different criteria, often mixing both supply-side and demand-side concepts. This study examines the impact of two operational definitions, one using a mix of supply and demand variables, the other using an approach where tourists self-define their identity. These two approaches are tested with the visitors to Taroko National Park in Taiwan. Some significant differences in the profiles of the two groups are observed; the study concludes that any definition of ecotourism should include refer-ence to motivations, activities, benefits sought, and measures of environmental attitudes. Key words: Ecotourists; Tourist profiles; Nature tourism; Taiwan; National Park attitudes, and activities. This definitional confusion can generate controversy about which activities and operations should be deemed to be “true” ecotourism. It also constrains the consistent and comparable quantitative evaluation of the nature and magnitude of the ecotourism market in different lo-
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 | 0.071 | 0.198 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".