A study on competitiveness of sea and island tourism in Vietnam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study selects and employs the model of Dwyer and Kim (2003) [Dwyer, L. & Kim, C. (2003).Destination competitiveness: Determinants and indicators.Current Issues in Tourism, 6(5), 369-414.] to assess the competitiveness of tourist destinations, in particular, the sea and island tourism in Nghe An province of Vietnam in the general development of sea and island tourism; based on the comparison with other similar destinations and top destinations in Vietnam.The study also indicates strengths and weaknesses of the sea and island tourism in Nghe An.We collect both qualitative and quantitative data and the results show that Nghe An stands in the middle position among five studied localities, reaching a level between neutral and good.Most of the competitive criteria of Nghe An are a little higher than Thanh Hoa and Ha Tinh but much lower than Da Nang and Khanh Hoa.Market demand is viewed as the strongest aspect of the sea and island tourism in Nghe An with criteria brand and the friendly/hospitality of local people, employees and office staff while the results of tourism activities and resources especially natural tourism resources are underestimated.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".