Agricultural Heritage Systems Tourism: definition, characteristics and development framework
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
Agricultural Heritage Systems Tourism (AHST) has increased considerably in the past ten years and is projected to continue growing in the future. Despite such growth, there is not a shared understanding of many aspects of the tourism development framework for all kinds of agricultural heritage sites. Given that meanings and characteristics are critical to determining the appeal of a particular activity among tourism consumers and because the development directions of AHST are essential for achieving heritage conservation goals, a study was conducted in 2014–2015 to assess stakeholder preferences for definitional phrases and their perceptions. This manuscript summarizes the characteristics of AHST in four aspects, taking agricultural heritage systems in China as examples: 1) synthesis of agritourism, cultural heritage tourism, and ecotourism; 2) annual variation of tourism attractions and activities; 3) the dominant role of artisan farmers; 4) the unique gastronomic experiences of traditional food. Finally, there are some objectives offered by this research from economic, environmental, cultural, social and political perspectives to build a framework of AHST according to its features and characteristics. Based on environmental and cultural objectives, with political and social support, through reaching the core objectives of economic development, AHST will be sustainable and agricultural heritage systems will be well conserved. This study carries important implications for the further applications of AHST.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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