Assessing Stakeholders’ Views of Tourism Policy in Prince Edward County
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
Prince Edward County, located in Ontario, Canada, is both a rural destination and an island. The destination, known familiarly as PEC, is fast becoming the newest winery destination in Ontario and faces the challenge of developing a tourism industry that is financially, socially, and environmentally sustainable. Like many other islands or rural areas, Prince Edward County is isolated and vulnerable to pressures from development and other human activities and sustainable development in PEC requires strategic and careful tourism planning. To support the viable development of a tourist destination while improving the regional quality of life, tourism policies must be forward-looking and satisfy the needs of multiple stakeholders. This allows more efficient and acceptable policy implementation as the policies are inclusive and cohesive. This study assesses current stakeholder perceptions of current tourism development and future tourism planning in PEC. The findings revealed that although the majority of the stakeholders agree with the importance of tourism development, many feel there are issues not being addressed by the county and are unhappy with the current direction of tourism development.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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