MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153120483 · doi:10.5539/jgg.v4n3p122

Impacts of Religious and Pilgrimage Tourism in Rural Areas: The Case of Iran

2012· article· en· W2153120483 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mehdi Pourtaheri, K H Rahmani, Hassan Ahmadi Gavlighi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geography and Geology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Tourism and Spaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTarbiat Modares University
KeywordsPilgrimageTourismRural areaRural tourismReligious tourismGeographySocioeconomicsEconomic growthTourism geographySociologyPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rural tourism has speedily developed and become an engine for economic development and plays a great role towards socio-economic changes in rural areas. However, its impact is controversial and not always obvious. To examine these issues, this research presents an empirical analysis of pilgrimage and religious tourism and the impacts of these types of travel in rural areas in Iran. The paper provides examples of these impacts and transformations in the three rural centers as Tourism Model Villages (TMVs). A qualitative method and survey questionnaire was distributed to 300 households in the study area and the data analyzed by use of One-sample T-test, Kruskal-Wallis and tukey test in SPSS software. In this regards the social, physical and economic impacts on the transformation of rural households are discussed. The results revealed that pilgrims and religious tourists are strongly influenced in rural areas, but the social aspect of pilgrimage and religious tourism had the largest impacts on rural households. And also the results indicated that the villages related to “Religious tourism”, have registered statistically significant higher impacts of those villages related to “Pilgrimage tourism”.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geography and GeologySame topicReligious Tourism and SpacesFrench-language works237,207