SWOT Analysis of Religious Tourism in the Roi Kaen Sarn Sin Cluster of Northeastern Thailand
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
This article aims to examine the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for tourism in the Roi Kaen Sarn Sin (RKSS) cluster, using a qualitative approach to consider religious tourism in northeastern Thailand. Semi-structured interviews were the main data collection tools, and key informants of this study included officers from both government and private sectors related to tourism in northeastern Thailand. The results found that religious tourism took place within this area a long time ago. Elements of religious tourism in the RKSS cluster include 1) attractions, 2) accessibility, 3) accommodations, 4) safety, 5) activities supporting tourism, and 6) social issues. Opportunities and weaknesses of the provincial clusters, from the point of view of religious tourism, can be classified into several issues, including infrastructure and transportation, tourism attractions, religious activities, networks, and local beliefs; the development strategies for increasing potential for religious tourism are 1) transportation coverage through public transport and 2) local sectors that keep area monastery histories.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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