INTERFERENCE BETWEEN HISTORICAL DISTRICT TOURISM DEVELOPMENTINTERFERENCE DEVELOPMENT AND LIVING ENVIRONMENT TRANSFORMATION:AND TRANSFORMATION:A CASE STUDY OFA OF“SHUANGDONGSHUANGDONG”,YANGZHOU,YANGZHOU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Living environment is an important issue of protection of historical districts.Grounded on the theory by Lefebvre,historical district is a social space shaped mainly by traditional living styles of local residents.Elements of living environment,such as social relationship,local culture,and daily activities and so on,together with material environment are primary constructors of the social space of a historical district.Interactions between tourism impacts and residents' habitus dominate,with local society being an adjuster,transformative process of historical district's social space,thus the living environment.The case study ofShuangdonghistorical district in Yangzhou proves un-continuity and heterogeneity of effects of tourism development on living environments.Accordingly,residents can be clustered into three groups with differentiated perceptions and attitudes towards tourism development.Effects of subjective characteristics on differing three groups from each other are meaner than that of objective ones,that is,tourism facilities and locations.Meanwhile,to react on involvement of tourism development into Shuangdong living environment,rearrangement of tourism facilities and their locations plays key roles.It proves that tourism development contributes largely to promotion of local living environment;however,nurturingShuangdongliving environment is trapped by two dilemmas:maintaining local tradition while traditions transformation is inevitable,and the whole living environment ofShuangdongoptimizing while both benefits and costs are asymmetric between residents.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".