Экологический туризм в России и странах Скандинавии
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, in our country there is a significant growth of interest in such unusual trend in tourism as ecological tourism. Ecotourism is a kind of nature tourism, which brings together people who want to be as close as possible to nature. The very concept of for our country is a relatively new, but in Western Europe, USA, Canada, Australia and other countries such kind of rest has already gained a lot of popularity. In Russia, despite the opportunities for development of this trend, ecotourism is underdeveloped. This article defines the concept of ecotourism, describes the peculiarities of this type of tourism, and lists the main requirements for eco-tours. The authors give the main reasons hindering the development of eco-tourism in our country. The authors consider in detail the Nordic countries as an example of the highest level of eco-tourism organizing. Currently, it is one of the most popular destinations for eco-tourists. The Nordic countries, namely Norway, Sweden and Denmark, provide great opportunities for the ecotourism development. It is promoted by the magnificent nature, picturesque landscapes, good level of state support and protection of national parks and reserves, the interest of the local population in maintaining the ecotourism facilities in proper state and creation of comfortable conditions for recreation of foreign and domestic tourists, who prefer to spend their holidays or a weekend surrounded by nature. There are solutions for active rest and relaxing vacation, which allows the Nordic countries to attract more and more eco-tourists year by year.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.154 | 0.180 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".