Cooperative Relationships Between First Nations and Tourism Operators on British Columbia's North Coast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many aboriginal communities are situated in remote environments that are well suited for nature-based and cultural tourism.Several of these communities are increasingly interested in tourism as a mechanism to achieve their socio-economic development objectives.However, many of them lack the necessary capital, skills and experience to successfully develop and manage tourism businesses.Cooperative relationships with non-aboriginal tourism operators may allow some of these communities to achieve tourism benefits while asserting governance over the lands and resources in their territories.The purpose of this study was to identify key principles and actions that would contribute to viable cooperative relationships in tourism, with a specific emphasis on relationships between First Nations and tourism operators.A case study approach was employed to identify the principles and actions as established by the Gitga'at Nation and King Pacific Lodge cooperative relationship on the north coast of British Columbia.Ten key principles for building effective relationships between aboriginal communities and tourism operators were identified.These included: trust and openness, complementary values, leadership with vision, compatible personalities, flexibility, patience and education, knowledge and respect, recognition of mutual benefits, written documentation and ongoing evaluation, and sufficient resources and ongoing communication.These principles were then integrated into a two-stage evolutionary model of Gitga'at cooperative relationship building. 5.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".