Implementing Sustainable Beach Tourism Management Framework for the Royal Coast Cluster, Thailand
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
<p>Beach tourism is one of the tourism models that most partners realize to manage to its sustainability. Integration of thoughts for various sectors was also needed for a walk to success. This research, thus, sought for ways to investigate for proper beach tourism management model with certain component. Testing will be implemented in area along the gulf of Thailand which is known by the name “The Royal Coast”. The mixed-methods design was employed for the study: focus group (n=88), policy meeting (n=29) and questionnaire (n=800). Both host whose stakeholders in public and privates business in the beach area and communities and guests or tourists were asked and discussed. The results from the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicated that six components were the significant factors for sustainable beach management, yielding Chi-square =10.870 Chi-square/df = 1.812, df = 6, p = 0.092, GFI = 0.996, CFI = 0.993, RMR = 0.008, RMSEA = 0.032. The sustainable beach tourism included six components of management on marketing and promotion management, tourist attraction management, participation management, environmental, cultural and education management, process, plan and policy management and personnel management respectively. All six components was assigned and implemented for testing in sustaining beach tourism management on the Royal Coast.</p>
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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