MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2192610866

The prospects for empowerment through local governance for tourism - the LEADER approach.

2015· article· en· W2192610866 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marianna Strzelecka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of rural and community development · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpowermentTourismCorporate governanceContext (archaeology)DeskGood governanceCommunismSustainable tourismPublic relationsBusinessPolitical scienceEconomic growthPublic administrationEconomicsPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While empowerment and cooperation are essential to achieve these tourism governance goals, few, if any studies, investigated conditions for empowerment in tourism governance in the post-communist setting. Filling the gap, this paper critically examines the prospects for empowerment in tourism governance in Poland. The extensive desk-study was conducted in 2010 to investigate the issues of empowerment in governance for tourism development. It focused on gathering and analyzing information about LEADER, and its transfer into the Polish context. The empirical data collection included guided interviews with 18 key-informants involved in LEADER. The article concludes that in the post-communist reality, the immediate concern is the effectiveness of community-led local development initiatives. New actors in tourism governance must demonstrate their value as legitimate partners and secure funds that develop and sustain empowering mechanisms to increase community capacity in both planning and implementation of local development initiatives. Keywords: tourism governance, empowerment, LEADER, community-led development, Poland

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0000.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of rural and community developmentSame topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207