La Planificación Turística Desde El Enfoque De La Competitividad: Caso Colombia (Tourism Planning from the Approach to Competitiveness: Colombia Case Study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spanish Abstract: Este documento de investigacion tiene el objetivo de mostrar, de una manera global, los principales resultados que derivan de la formulacion de once planes de desarrollo turistico2 realizados en Colombia en 2012. Asi las cosas, se pretende que el lector tenga una vision panoramica de la planificacion turistica en Colombia. El articulo describe el enfoque metodologico del proceso adelantado, el cual se fundamenta en algunos de los factores planteados por los teoricos canadienses Crouch y Ritchie, a saber: atraccion, soporte, produccion y gestion de destino. Posteriormente se muestran las tendencias generales, derivadas del analisis de dichos factores, que expresan la realidad turistica del pais, y a partir de las cuales se establecen los resultados, conclusiones y acciones por seguir.English Abstract: This research paper has the objective to show in a comprehensive way, the results that were thrown by the eleven tourism development plans made in Colombia, in 2012. In fact, it is intended to give an overview of tourism planning in the country. Originally, the article presents the methodological approach of the process, which is based on the four competitiveness factors formulated by Canadian academics Crouch and Ritchie: attraction, support, production and destination management. Subsequently, the authors show the general trends (national trends) in the four factors analyzed, to have a view of the whole situation: weaknesses, opportunities, strengths and threats and thus, draw the results and the conclusions under the advanced process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".