MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167767540 · doi:10.1080/17451590509618088

Development and ranking of tourism management goals for Wolong and Wanglang Giant Panda Nature Reserves, China

2005· article· en· W2167767540 on OpenAlexaff
Weinan Connie Yin, Paul F.J. Eagles

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersWorld Wildlife Fund
KeywordsNature reserveAiluropoda melanoleucaEndangered speciesTourismEnvironmental resource managementChinaWildlifeGeographyHabitatBusinessEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleucais) is an endangered species with a high-profile international image.Its profile is heightened through its use by the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) as a symbol of conservation.To protect the giant panda and its habitat, the Chinese government established 33 nature reserves between 1962 and 2002, with a total area of 5,830 km 2. There are about 1,590 wild giant panda protected and managed in their natural habitat in China.The Wolong and Wanglang Nature Reserves in the Minshan Mountains of Sichuan Province have thriving populations of giant pandas and, recently, have seen large increases in tourism.Neither of these reserves have formal tourism management goals or plans.This research used a literature review to develop tourism management goals and a Delphi method applied to reserve managers, scientists and park visitors to develop and prioritize the goals for these reserves.The research found that the tourism management goals developed from the international literature were applicable in this specific situation involving a charismatic, endangered species in China.It also revealed that prioritization amongst many applicable goals can also be achieved.This is the first time that tourism management goals have been developed for the giant panda reserves in China.It is also significant that these goals were developed using the opinions of three key groups involved in research, resource management and tourism at the reserves.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Biodiversity Science and ManagementSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207